Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo


See other formats




Full texts of the speeches made by 


Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR 

on his tour of the United States 

September 15-27, 1959 

Translated from the book published in the USSR 


NEW YOR.K 1960 


A copy of this material has been filed with the Department of Justice 
where the registration statement of CROSSCURRENTS PRESS, INC., 33 
West 42nd Street, New York 36, N. Y., as a publishing agency of 
MEZHDUNARODNAYA KNIGA, Moscow, is available for inspection. Regis- 
tration does not indicate approval or disapproval of this material by the 
United States Government. 


Preface 7 

On the Eve of the Tour 

On the Exchange of Visits Between N. S. Khrushcftev, 
Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, 

and President Dwight D. Eisenhower of the USA 9 

(Official Announcement Published on August 4, 1959) 
N. S. Khrushchev's Reply to Letters and Telegrams 
Received on the Eve of U.S. Tour 9 

IN WASHINGTON September 15-16 

N. S. Khrushchev's Speech at Andrews Field 13 

N. S. Khrushchev's Speech at White House Dinner 15 

N. S. Khrushchev Addresses Journalists at the National 

Press Club 17 

Question Period 26 

Interview with Leaders of the U. S. Congress and 

Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 32 

Speech by N. S. Khrushchev at Dinner Given for 

President Dwight D. Eisenhower ,. ..A.... 43 

IN NEW YORK September 17-19 

N. S. Khrushchev's Speech at the Luncheon Given by 

Robert Wagner, Mayor of New York 46 

N. S. Khrushchev's Speech at the Dinner Given in the 

Economic Club of New York 51 

Question Period 62 

Speech by N. S. Khrushchev at the Session of the 

UN General Assembly 68 

Declaration of the Soviet Government 87 

General and Complete Disarmament is the Way to Deliver 

Mankind from the Scourge of War 87 

Program of General and Complete Disarmament 98 

N. S. Khrushchev's Statement Before His Departure 

from New York 102 

IN LOS ANG1LES September 19 

Speech by N. S. Khrushchev at Luncheon Held at the 

Twentieth Century Fox Studios 104 

Speech by N. S. Khrushchev at Reception Given by the 
Municipal Authorities and the Association on 
International Affairs of Los Angeles 113 

IN SAN FRANCISCO September 20-21 

N. S. Khrushchev's Speech 124 

Meeting with U. S. Trade-Union Leaders 125 

Speech by N. S. Khrushchev at a Meeting with 

Longshoremen of the Pacific Coast 140 

N. S, Khrushchev's Speech at the IBM Corporation Plant 

in San Jose 140 

Speech by N. S. Khrushchev at a Reception in San Francisco 142 

IN IOWA September 22-23 

Speech by N. S. Khrushchev on Arriving in Des Moines 152 

Speech by N. S. Khrushchev at the Reception in the 

Des Moines Chamber of Commerce 153 

N. S. Khrushchev's Speech Before Taking off from Des Moines ....163 

IN PITTSBURGH September24 

Speech by N. S. Khrushchev on Arriving in Pittsburgh 164 

Speech by N. S. Khrushchev at a Luncheon in Pittsburgh 164 

IN WASHINGTON September 24-27 

Meeting with a Group of Representatives of the U. S. Business 

and Commercial World 177 

Speech by N. S. Khrushchev at a Luncheon Given by 

U. S. Secretary of State Christian Herter 187 

Joint Soviet-American Communique 189 

Press Conference in Washington 190 

Replies to Questions 192 

N. S. Khrushchev's Broadcast over U. S. Television 198 

Speech by N. S. Khrushchev on His Departure from the USA ....207 
To President Dwight D. Eisenhower of the United States 

of America (Radiogram from the TC/-114 plane) 208 

To His Excellency Nikita S. Khrushchev, Chairman of the 

Council of Ministers of the Union of Soviet 

Socialist Republics (Reply Radiogram) 208 

IN MOSCOW September 28 

Meeting of the People of Moscow in Honor of JV. S. Khrushchev's 

Return to the Soviet Union 210 

Speech by Y. N. Nikolayev 212 

Speech by U. M. Trofimova 213 

Speech by L. I. Sedov 215 

Speech by L. M. Selivanova 216 

Speech by N. S. Khrushchev 217 

Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR 

Cheers along the road for Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers Khrushchev. 


KHRUSHCHEV IN AMERICA contains the full texts of the speeches 
made by N. S. Khrushchev, Chairman of the Council of Ministers 
of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, on his tour of the United 
States, September 15-27, 1959. These speeches are translated from 
the authoritative collection entitled LIVE IN PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP! 
published and widely circulated in the Soviet Union. 

The translation includes a condensation of explanatory material 
from the Soviet book describing the place and circumstances of each 
speech or discussion. The translation also contains several instances 
of pointed editorial commentary on remarks made to Khrushchev 
in question periods and discussions. These were written by and 
express the opinions of the Soviet editors of LIVE IN PEACE AND 
FRIENDSHIP! They are retained in order to convey accurately to 
the reader the Soviet point of view on various aspects of the Khrush- 
chev trip. 

Khrushchev's American speeches constitute an historical docu- 
ment of first-rate importance. They place before the reader Khrush- 
chev the man, the political leader, the master of repartee and wit 
They reflect the position of his government on a wide range of issues. 
But most important of all, these speeches are the principal record 
of a trip that has already exercised a profound influence on the 
course of world affairs and perhaps opened a new and more hopeful 
chapter in relations between the two powers on which the future 
dependsthe United States and the Soviet Union. 

The publisher takes pleasure in making available, in permanent 
form, the record of this eventful trip. 

New York, N. Y. 
January 2, 1960 

On the Eve of the Tour 


(Official Announcement Published on August 4, 1959) 

The President of the United States has invited N. S. Khrushchev, 
Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, to make an 
official visit to the United States in September 1959. N. S. Khrushchev 
has accepted the invitation with pleasure. 

The President has also accepted with pleasure the invitation of 
N. S. Khrushchev to make an official visit to the USSR later in the 
autumn of this year. 

N. S. Khrushchev will spend two or three days in Washington 
and will tour the United States for approximately ten days. He will 
have unofficial talks with the president, which will present an oppor- 
tunity for an exchange of opinions on problems of mutual interest. 

During his tour of the United States, N. S. Khrushchev will have 
an opportunity of personally seeing the country and its people and 
getting acquainted with their life. 

President Eisenhower will visit Moscow and will also spend 
several days touring the Soviet Union. This will provide another 
opportunity for unofficial talks and an exchange of opinions with 
the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR on problems 
of mutual interest 

During his tour of the Soviet Union President Eisenhower will 
also have an opportunity of personally seeing the country and its 
people and getting acquainted with their life. 

Both governments express the hope that the forthcoming visits 
will contribute to better understanding between the USA and the 
USSR, and promote the cause of peace. 


In connection with my visit to the United States of America I 
have received many letters and telegrams from Soviet people and 

from citizens of other countries, including Americans. These letters 
and telegrams express the hope that my visit will serve to improve 
relations between the USSR and the USA, and that the exchange 
of views with Mr. Eisenhower, the President of the United States, 
will be a good start in improving the international situation. 

Mankind is now living in a wonderful time. It is a time when 
science and technology, economy and culture are flourishing, when, 
indeed, the fantastic is becoming reality. Our visit to the United 
States coincides with two immensely important events: The world's 
first space rocket has been successfully sent to the moon from the 
earth by Soviet people, and the world's first atomic icebreaker, the 
Lenin, has set out on her maiden voyage. 

How many fantastic novels, tales and poems have been written 
about flights to the moon! For ages people have dreamed of inter- 
planetary flight, and at last we are about to see this daring dream 
come true. For decades scientists have striven to build a ship which 
could break her way to the North Pole, and at last such a ship has 
been launched. 

How can we, Soviet people and not only we, but all people of 
good will help rejoicing and admiring the great feat of Soviet scien- 
tists, engineers, technicians and workers, who calculated to the minute 
and second and accomplished the marvelous flight of a rocket from 
the earth to the moon. How can we help congratulating the Soviet 
scientists, engineers, technicians and workers who built the world's 
first atomic icebreaker, which will stay at sea for months, crushing 
the ice of many centuries. 

The exploit of the Soviet conquerors of outer space has ushered 
in a new era, when man, possessing a most profound knowledge of 
the laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics, astronomy and other 
sciences, has created a force capable of sending a powerful spaceship 
from the earth to another heavenly body, and of directing it exactly 
to a predetermined point 

Why were the Soviet people the first in the world to successfully 
solve such a difficult and truly grandiose problem as sending a rocket 
to the moon a problem with many unknowns? This triumph became 
possible because these same Soviet people had with their own hands, 
their heroic labor, in a historically short period, succeeded in solving 
the supreme social problem. They have built a socialist society and 
are confidently building communism. 

The unparalleled flight of the Soviet rocket to the moon and 
the launching of the atomic icebreaker Lenin convincingly show that, 


acting upon the historic decisions of the Twenty-first Party Congress, 
our people are successfully developing the material and technical 
basis of communist society. Only people who deliberately close their 
eyes and refuse to look reality in the face can doubt the boundless 
possibilities for human progress offered by communism. 

Soviet people are pleasantly stirred and tremendously impressed 
by the news of the rocket flight to the moon. They are proud of their 
scientists, engineers, technicians and workers, who were the first in 
the world to send to the moon a container with scientific instruments 
and an emblem with the coat of arms of the Soviet Union, thereby 
whining priority for our country. Our priority, the Soviet Union's 
priority, of the first successful rocket flight to the moon, is thus firmly 

We realize, of course, that the triumph of our space conquerors 
is a feat of the entire Soviet people, a victory for the entire socialist 
camp. It is an outstanding contribution to the development of world 
science, an achievement of world significance. 

The launching of the icebreaker Lenin, whose engines are now 
being powered by atomic energy, is likewise of symbolic importance. 
It is no mere coincidence that the Soviet people, who were the first 
in the world to start up an atomic power station, should also be the 
first to launch an atomic icebreaker. We have thereby again strik- 
ingly demonstrated that the Soviet people are fully resolved to use 
atomic energy for peaceful purposes. 

Our atomic icebreaker Lenin will break not only the ice of 
oceans, but also the ice of the cold war. She will blaze the road to 
the minds and hearts of nations, calling upon them to turn from the 
competition between states in the arms race to a competition in uses 
of nuclear energy for man's weal, to warm his body and soul, to 
create everything that he needs. We are ready to cooperate with all 
nations in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and would be happy 
if this call were taken up by all governments. 

The scientists of the Soviet Union who built the rocket and sent 
it to the moon have given me a replica of the emblem taken there 
by the Soviet rocket I shall be happy to present this replica to the 
President of the United States, Mr. Eisenhower. May this emblem 
be a symbol calling on Soviet and American scientists, engineers and 
workers, on our peoples to join their efforts in creative work, in the 
struggle to improve relations between our countries, to win peace 
among all the nations of the world. 


I should like to assure my dear compatriots and everybody else 
who has sent me friendly letters and telegrams in connection with my 
visit to the USA, that for my part I shall make every effort to justify 
your hopes. I do not doubt the good intentions of the President of 
the USA. In inviting me to visit the United States, he, too, evidently 
strives to find a common language for a settlement of controversial 
international questions and an improvement of relations between 
our countries. 

Our main objective must be to secure peaceful conditions of life 
for all people on earth. 

I thank you, dear comrades and foreign friends, for your good 



September 14, 1959 

IN WASHINGTON September 15-16 


N. S. Khrushchev, Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, 
his family and his party arrived in the USA on an official visit on 
September 15. 

At Andrews Field near Washington N. S. Khrushchev, replying to 
the welcome speech by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, said: 


Allow me at this moment, as I step on American soil for the 
first time, to thank Mr. Eisenhower for his invitation to visit your 
country, and to thank all of you for the warm welcome you have 
extended to us, representatives of the Soviet Union. 

Russians say that "every good thing should be started in the 
morning.** Our trip started this morning in Moscow, and we are happy 
that our first meeting with you on American soil is taking place on 
the morning of the same day. As you see, our countries are not so 
very far away from each other. 

It was with great pleasure and gratitude that I accepted the 
invitation of the President of the USA to come to your country on 
an official visit, and I shall be happy to talk with statesmen, business- 
men, intellectuals, workers and farmers, and to acquaint myself with 
the life of the industrious and enterprising American people. 

For our part, we shall in the near future be happy to receive 
Mr. Eisenhower, the members of his family and his party in the 
Soviet Union. We shall accord the President a most cordial reception 
and afford him every opportunity of seeing the life of the Soviet 

We have always held that mutual visits and meetings of govern- 
ment representatives are useful Meetings and talks between states- 
men of our two great countries the Soviet Union and the United 
States are of special importance. 

All nations are deeply interested in preserving and consolidating 
peace, in peaceful coexistence. War augurs no good to anyone. Peace 
is of benefit to all peoples. That, in our opinion, is the cardinal prin- 


Welcome parade in honor of the arrival of Khrushchev in Washington. 

ciple which statesmen of all countries should act upon in order to 
meet the hopes of the peoples. 

We have come to you with an open heart and with good inten- 
tions. The Soviet people want to live in peace and friendship with 
the American people. There is nothing to prevent the relations be- 
tween our countries from being built up as relations between good 
neighbors. The Soviet and American peoples, as well as other peo- 
ples, fought well together against the common enemy during the 
Second World War and crushed him. In peacetime we have more 
grounds and greater opportunities for friendship and cooperation 
between the peoples of our countries. 

On the eve of our meeting with you, Mr. President, Soviet 
scientists, engineers, technicians and workers gladdened us by launch- 
ing a rocket to the moon. The path from the earth to the moon has 
thus been blazed and a container weighing 390 kilograms, with a 


device bearing the coat of arms of the Soviet Union, is now on the 
moon. Our earth has now become somewhat lighter, and the moon 
several hundred kilograms heavier. I am sure that this historic 
achievement of peaceful Soviet science gladdens not only Soviet 
people, but also all the people who value peace and friendship 
between nations. 

An atomic-powered icebreaker was launched in the Soviet 
Union a few days ago. We rejoice at this concrete expression of the 
desire of all peoples that nuclear energy be used for peaceful pur- 
poses only. We know, Mr. President, that you hold dear the idea 
of the peaceful utilization of nuclear energy, and note with satisfac- 
tion that in this sphere your aims coincide with ours. 

We do not doubt that the splendid scientists, engineers and 
workers of the United States who are working to conquer outer space 
will likewise deliver their emblem to the moon. The Soviet emblem, 
as an old resident of the moon, will welcome your emblem, and they 
will live in peace and friendship just as you and we on earth must 
live in peace and friendship, and just as all the nations of our com- 
mon Mother Earth, which rewards us so generously with her bounty, 
must live in peace and friendship. 

Permit me in these first minutes of our stay in the United States 
to convey heartfelt greetings and very best wishes to the American 
people from the peoples of the Soviet Union, from the Soviet Gov- 
ernment and from myself. 


President Dwight D. Eisenhower of the USA and Mrs. Eisenhower 
gave a dinner in honor of N. S. Khrushchev, Chairman of the Council 
of Ministers of the USSR, and Madame Khrushchova on the evening 
of September 15. 

During the dinner President Dwight D. Eisenhower and N. S. 
Khrushchev exchanged speeches. 


I want to thank Mr. Eisenhower for his good wishes. We have 
come to the United States with the best of intentions, at the Presi- 
dent's invitation. We want to reach an understanding on improving 
our relations. Our countries are very strong. They must not quarrel 
with each other. If small countries quarrel, they can do little more, 
to put it figuratively, than scratch each other. And in a day or two 
cosmetics will efface the traces of that quarrel. But if strong coun- 


tries were to quarrel, such as the United States and the Soviet Union, 
it would not be our countries alone that would suffer enormous 
damage, but other countries as well would inevitably be drawn into 
a worldwide fray. 

We are confident that our two states and our peoples can live 
in friendship and work in common for an enduring peace. You have 
mentioned the fact that it will soon be 150 years since diplomatic 
relations were established between the United States and Russia. 
I should also like to say a few words in this regard. I think that when 
the U.S. Ambassador presented his credentials to Emperor Alexander 
I, the Emperor did not trust him much, because the U.S. Ambassador 
represented a republic, while Alexander I was an absolute monarch. 
Yet, in spite of this, diplomatic relations were established between 
our countries. There was mutual understanding between the United 
States and Russia, and contacts between them grew stronger. 

Our countries have never waged war against each other; indeed, 
they have never had any major quarrels, with the exception of the 
well-known events in the early years of Soviet power. Of course, I 
don't lay claim to a profound knowledge of history, but I feel sure 
that this is precisely how matters stand. 

Now times have changed. Russia has changed. We believe that 
our socialist system is better than yours. You think that your system 
is better than ours. What are we to do? Should we extend the con- 
troversy over whose system is better to a fight between us on the 
battlefield? Would it not be better to let history settle the issue? 
I think that would be more reasonable. If you agree with that, we 
can build our relations on a basis of peace and friendship. 

Yours is a rich and strong country. I have read many of your 
speeches, gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives 
present here. And although I have met you for the first time today, 
you are old acquaintances of mine, thanks to your speeches. 

The time has come to stop and think, and to make every effort 
to improve the relations between our countries. 

We want nothing from you and you need nothing of what we 
have. It is true that for the time being you are richer than we. But 
We want to be as rich tomorrow as you are now, and richer still the 
day after. (Animation.) And what is wrong with that? After all, we 
want to earn it all by our own labor, not to take wealth away from 
anyone. I must say that I was pleased with the meeting and exchange 
of views we had with the President today. When some of our jour- 


nalists approached me after the meeting and inquired about my 
impressions, I told them that there would be a joint communique 
and that they should go by what that communique said. But I could 
not help telling them that I would inform my government that my 
impression was good and that, in my opinion, a good beginning had 
been made. God grant that the end may be better still 

I should like to propose a toast to the health of the President, 
to the health of his wife and to all of you esteemed ladies and 
gentlemen. (Applause.) 


N. S. Khrushchev met American and foreign journalists at the 
National Press Club in Washington on September 16. 



I am pleased to meet prominent U.S. journalists at the beginning 
of my visit I have had more than one occasion to see that journalists 

President Eisenhower laughs heartily as Soviet Premier Khrusfa 
chev gestures during a picture-taking session at the White House. 

are very inquisitive people. They want to know everything about 
everything at once and have a very lively imagination. I have received 
so many questions that I would have to stay here six months to 
answer all of them. How about that, would you object if I were to 
stay here six months? Thank you in advance. But I must return to 
Moscow to receive your esteemed President in our country. 

In addressing you, I will do my best to satisfy your curiosity 
and to tell you briefly about some problems connected with my U.S. 

In one of my talks with journalists in Moscow I called them my 
traveling companions. Indeed, many of you will be my companions 
on this tour of the United States. I should like you very much to be 
good, active and objective companions. For it will be largely up to 
you journalists to supply people with truthful information about our 
stay in the United States. You will hear my interviews and speeches 
and report them. I ask you ladies and gentlemen, to try to under- 
stand me correctly and to report correctly what I say. If I should 
happen to make a slip, ask me to repeat what I said and I will answer 
you gladly, because I don't want a misconstrued word to clash with 
what I meant to say and what I strive for. 

I have been asked what results our visit may be expected to 
produce. We arrived in the U.S. capital only yesterday. It would be 
premature to try to anticipate the results of our trip. After all, even 
in forecasting the next day's weather, the meteorological service 
comes up against considerable difficulties, and political forecasts are 
no less difficult But to judge by the first day of our meetings and 
interviews in Washington, I would say that the barometer points to 

We have almost a fortnight before us. We will acquaint our- 
selves with your country, with the life of your people, and will have 
talks with President Eisenhower on matters of interest to both parties. 
It has been long since I last met your President, whose outstanding 
qualities are highly appreciated in the Soviet Union. We kept in 
touch mainly through our Ambassadors or by exchanging messages. 
But, of course, such contacts cannot replace personal contacts and 
frank talk. 

I am sure that you do not expect me to tell you all I have said, 
or intend to say, to the President But I will have to tell you some- 
thing, or you will not have a proper idea of the Soviet stand on the 
major international issues. 


First of all, I wish to stress that we have come to you with the 
best of intentions and with an open heart. We have come with senti- 
ments of friendship for the American people and a sincere desire to 
achieve better relations between our two countries and promote peace 
all over the world. That is the main object of our visit 

We should like to reach an understanding with your government 
on questions of vital importance. Such questions are many. But I 
should, above all, like to mention the questions of relaxing inter- 
national tension and eliminating the cold war, of disarmament, a 
German peace treaty, world trade and better relations between our 

I think the main subject of our talks with the President will be 
the problem of eliminating the cold war and promoting peace, of 
easing international tension. Recently your President said that 
thought should be given to the question of how much longer the 
arms race and the state of tension in international relations could 
continue and whether the world had not reached a point where there 
might be an explosion. We fully share the dissatisfaction with the 
existing state of world affairs and the concern voiced in that statement 

If we turn to history, we will note easily enough that so far, 
unfortunately, wars and extermination of man by man have invaria- 
bly accompanied human society. And although mankind had con- 
tinuously advanced along the path of progress, wars became more 
destructive with every step forward. They took an increasing toll of 
human lives and their flames spread to larger and larger areas. 

In the twentieth century mankind has already gone through 
two world wars, and the sacrifice made in these wars is in no way 
comparable to the past Now that man has learned to control the 
energy of the atom and developed missiles capable of covering thou- 
sands of kilometers in a matter of minutes, the best aircraft, battle- 
ships and tanks used in the Second World War seem little more than 
toys compared with the latest means of waging war. In these circum- 
stances it would be sheer madness to allow a new world war to mature. 

To preserve peace and rule out war from the life of society for 
all time is the lofty goal which all peoples want to achieve. The 
present age has produced new means of mass annihilation, but it has 
also brought home to the peoples the necessity of preventing war 
and ensuring peace. It is to this lofty goal that the powerful peace 
movement has dedicated itself. We are convinced that in our day 
war is not inevitable. Man can and must be relieved from fear of its 


The best and most dependable way of making war impossible 
is to put all states, without exception, in a position in which they 
will have no means of waging war, or, in other words, to solve the 
disarmament problem. To be sure, disarmament affects the most 
sensitive interests of states, the interests of their security, and invades 
the sphere of such secret information as any state finds difficult to 
part with, especially at a time of international tension and mutual 

Without anticipating what I intend to submit to the General 
Assembly the day after tomorrow, I can tell you that I intend to 
concentrate on the disarmament problem. The Soviet Government 
contemplates placing before the United Nations a proposal which 
we hope will play an important part in settling the most crucial 
problem of our time. 

There are also other pressing international problems. You are 
aware, of course, that the Soviet Union attaches great importance 
to the conclusion of a peace treaty with Germany. It is high time, 
once and for all, to settle issues inherited from the Second World 
War, if we do not want to see the day when a third world war 
breaks out 

Why do we insist so strongly that a peace treaty be finally con- 
cluded with Germany? We do so for the simple reason that the 
absence of a peace treaty is poisoning the relations between dozens 
of countries. Unless the vestiges of the last war are removed, it will 
be impossible to provide for a durable peace in Europe. We cannot 
be sure that these vestiges will not fertilize the soil for a new war. 
I fully realize the importance of fertilizer in farming, but I am against 
fertilizer of that sort in politics. 

We are deeply convinced that the situation must not be tolerated 
in which, fourteen years after the Second World War, the countries 
which fought against Germany have not yet concluded peace with 
that country, and, consequently, the occupation regime is still main- 
tained in West Berlin. 

There are Americans who sometimes reason as follows: Europe 
is far away from us; there are two German states on the territory of 
Germany, one of which is even an ally of the United States and, as 
all know, there is no harm in having an extra ally. So, they say, we 
can get along just as well without a peace treaty. 

Pardon my saying so, but such reasoning is fit only for reckless 
people. Judge for yourselves, your country has twice in the lifetime 
of a single generation had to send its sons to battlefields in Europe 


to fight against Germany. And what will happen if your present ally, 
West Germany, provokes a third war? As matters stand today, it 
would no longer be a question of sending the breadwinners of Amer- 
ican families to theaters of war far removed from American shores. 
The territory of any belligerent would become a theater of war. 
Modern means of annihilation are such that war may spread instantly 
to the entire globe. 

You must understand that it is by no means for any fear of 
the German militarists that we remind you of the dangers of not 
having a peace treaty with Germany. We are strong enough to muzzle 
the revanchists and, if necessary, to bring them to their senses. But 
you will admit that there is no ignoring the fact that certain West 
German groups are nurturing plans of bringing the Soviet Union into 
conflict with other powers, of aggravating relations between them 
and keeping the world in a state of international tension. 

It is known that the postwar development of Europe and Ger- 
many has led to the establishment of two German states. Both these 
states exist irrespective of our wishes or our attitude to them. We 
must reckon with that Realistic policy is the most correct policy. The 
only thing to do is to accept the fact that there exist two German 
states, that is, to recognize the status quo which has taken shape in 
the German question, instead of dragging out the elimination of 
the vestiges of the war, and to conclude peace with the two German 

To admit of just one possibility the conclusion of a peace 
treaty with a unified Germany only, which, to be sure, would be 
tantamount, in effect, to dismissing the question of a peace treaty. 

The conclusion of a peace treaty would also be instrumental in 
ultimately settling a question such as that of Berlin, which is causing 
continuous friction in the relations between the powers. It is alleged 
sometimes that a year ago the Berlin question did not exist and that 
the situation in Berlin was not bad. But must we really wait till 
a seemingly insignificant incident in Berlin starts the guns barking? 
We maintain that measures for the prevention of conflict should be 
taken in good time. 

Neither the Soviet Union nor the German Democratic Republic 
has any hidden motives or secret designs on West Berlin. No one 
wants to annex West Berlin to the German Democratic Republic, 
any more than to change its social and economic order. 

The communique" released after the talks between the heads of 
government of the United States and the Federal Republic of Ger~ 


many late last month said that President Eisenhower had reaffirmed 
'the pledge of the United States and its allies to protect the freedom 
and welfare of the Berlin population." Very good, that formula 
accords with our own intentions. The Soviet Union has declared that 
the most reasonable thing to do in the present circumstances is to 
proclaim West Berlin a free city. We have proposed in the past, and 
propose now, that the independent existence of West Berlin be 
ensured through the most reliable guarantees known in international 
practice, with or without UN participation. That ought to assure the 
freedom and welfare of the people of West Berlin. 

We take it as a good sign that at the Geneva foreign ministers' 
conference, the attitudes of the three Western Powers and the Soviet 
Union came somewhat closer together and a better understanding 
was achieved of each other's intentions and views. But there are still 
some outstanding questions on which agreement has to be reached. 
If I were to tell you that these questions will not be touched on dur- 
ing the forthcoming conversations, you would not believe me anyway. 

We know that the Americans are a freedom-loving people and 
that they are prepared, as in the past, to stand up for their convic- 
tions, for the right to live as they choose. The same sentiments are 
dear to the Soviet people. Reserving this right for oneself, one cannot 
deny it to others, whatever one's opinion as to whose political and 
social system is better. The peoples must decide the question of how 
to live, what ideology, what views to adhere to on their own, without 
outside interference. 

The Soviet Union is for the development of international rela- 
tions along the principles of peaceful coexistence. These principles 
were bequeathed to us by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the great founder 
of the Soviet state. And we are faithful to these principles. We hold 
that differences in world outlook should not impair relations between 
countries. Close economic and cultural contacts should be established 
among all countries. That will help nations and statesmen to know 
and understand one another better. It will facilitate the establishment 
of mutual trust and peaceful cooperation. 

The Soviet Union and the United States are faced with the 
choice either of having the latest achievements of scientific and tech- 
nological thought the discovery of the secret of the atom, the making 
of rockets and the penetration into outer space placed at the service 
of man's peaceful future and prosperity, or of seeing them used for 
purposes of destruction and annihilation, so that, as a result, the earth 
will be covered with graves and ashes. 


Khrushchev speaking at the National Press Club in Washington. 

The Soviet people have long since made their choice in favor 
of peace. 

Is this not conclusively attested to by such facts as the building 
in the Soviet Union of the world's first atomic power station, which 
for five years now has been supplying power for peaceful uses, or 
the launching into outer space of the world's first artificial earth 
satellites and the first artificial planet, made and fired into the uni- 
verse by man's genius? 

Is this not attested to by the outstanding success of Soviet 
scientists, engineers, technicians and workers who prepared and ac- 
complished the world's first space trip from the earth to another 
heavenly body, the moon? A powerful container with scientific and 
measuring instruments and pennants displaying the Soviet coat of 
arms have been delivered to the surface of the moon. This peaceful 
feat of the Soviet people greatly extends the horizons of human 
knowledge and shows what glittering heights mankind will reach if 


it concentrates all its energy on peaceful pursuits, on the achieve- 
ment of peaceful aims. 

Before we left for the United States a mighty atom-powered 
icebreaker, the Lenin, was launched She will soon begin to crush the 
thick ice of northern seas, clearing the way for peaceful ships carry- 
ing most peaceful cargoes for peaceful people. 

We are certain that the American people, too, are for peace. But 
if our interests coincide in the key issue the problem of guaranteeing 
peace we should fall into step and work, joining our efforts and 
energy, for a decisive change in the international climate. Let us, 
therefore, see how we can establish Soviet-American cooperation. 

As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, it is prepared to con- 
sider any proposals likely to promote the establishment of good- 
neighbor relations between the USSR and the USA. This, of course, 
calls for an effort by both parties, or, as people say in your country, 
both parties must meet each other halfway. 

To be sure, this cannot be done overnight; it would be naive to 
expect that we could wake up one morning to find all controversial 
issues settled and all differences removed The .misunderstandings 
and prejudices born of the cold war are too numerous. But the Soviet 
Government believes that if we work together with a will, it will be 
quite possible to disperse the dark clouds in the relations between 
our countries. 

Compare the present international situation with what it was, 
say, five or six years ago. There are unmistakable signs of a relaxa- 
tion of the cold war. The cold war must be helped to disappear as 
quickly as possible. The press, which has apparently not for nothing 
been called a great power, could do a great deal towards this goal. 

The Soviet people are happy to see that there have recently 
been signs of improvement in Soviet-American relations. Among 
other things, I have in mind the development of personal contacts 
between statesmen, such as the U.S. visits of A I. Mikoyan and 
F. R. Kozlov, and Vice-President Richard Nixon's visit to the Soviet 
Union. The Soviet Exhibition in New York and the American Exhibi- 
tion in Moscow were another big event I had the pleasure of visiting 
your exhibition with Mr. Richard Nixon. There the two of us had 
heated and useful discussions. 

We are also prepared to do everything we can for the expansion 
of world trade. It is high time to do away with the discredited policy 
of trade discrimination and thereby clear the atmosphere in interna- 
tional relations. 


How can the present volume of Soviet-American trade, for ex- 
ample, be considered normal? All the commodities which our two 
countries exchange in a year could be loaded on two freighters. Yet 
our two countries account for more than half the world's industrial 
output. We may ask what purpose is achieved by the policy of trade 
discrimination, what object it serves. To take a sober view of things, 
it is a policy that only serves one purpose that of maintaining dis- 
trust in the relations between our countries. 

Trade is like a barometer. It shows the trend in political devel- 
opment whether clouds are gathering as before a storm or whether 
it will be fair and fine. We sincerely hope the barometer will always 
point to "Fair," and this, we are deeply convinced, requires all-around 
expansion of international trade. 

What else prevents us from achieving mutual understanding 
and trust? 

It may seem strange, but in connection with this exchange of 
visits between the U.S. President and myself fears have been voiced 
that the Soviet Union, while declaring its readiness to put relations 
with the USA on a sound basis, is allegedly hatching some insidious 
scheme, seeking to sow discord between the United States and its 
friends and allies. There is no need for me to go into detail, because 
these allegations are utterly absurd. We have no intention of making 
anyone quarrel with anyone else. On the contrary, we are doing our 
best to have good relations not only with the United States, but also 
with its allies. We should like personal contacts between Soviet and 
U.S. statesmen to contribute, in turn, to a further improvement of 
relations between the Soviet Union and Great Britain, the Soviet 
Union and France and other U.S. allies. 

An exchange of opinions between the Soviet and U.S. Govern- 
ments will not, and cannot, do any harm to those who are sincerely 
interested in an improvement of the international situation. If, as a 
result of this exchange of opinions, the USSR and USA come to 
understand each other better and to show greater pliancy in settling 
controversial matters, both the large and the small countries of 
Europe, Asia and the other continents will benefit by it, and the cause 
of peace will benefit most of all 

We are not pursuing a policy of plotting with the strong against 
the weak. We want to reach an understanding with the strong and 
thereby to reach an understanding with all countries about eliminat- 
ing the cold war. That would be an equal gain and an equal benefit 
for all countries. 


I have already said that we came to your country with an open 
heart. We are here not to ask for anything or impose anything on 
you. Our purpose is to acquaint ourselves with your country and its 
great people, who have made a tremendous contribution to human 
progress, to meet your statesmen, public leaders and businessmen, to 
have useful talks on all matters that concern the peoples of our 
countries and all mankind. 

It is my hope that the U.S. newspapers and magazines, radio 
and television will convey our friendly greetings to the American 
people, our wishes for peace and happiness to all Americans from all 
the Soviet people, from myself and from those accompanying me. 

Thank you. 

JY. S. Khrushchev's address was listened to with great attention. 
His concluding words were received with vigorous applause. 


After N. S. Khrushchev had concluded his address, William 
Lawrence, Chairman of the National Press Club, suggested passing 
on to the question period. 

The first question, relating to the J. V. Stalin personality cult, 
was considered by the speaker to be of a plainly provocative nature. 
In answering it, N. S. Khrushchev said: 

I should like to ask those who have thought up this question: 
What was their aim, what were they after, what did they want, when 
they were inventing it, when thinking it up? You apparently want 
to place me in an embarrassing position, and are laughing before- 
hand. The Russians say, "He laughs best who laughs last" Gentle- 
men, inventing all sorts of absurd figments, though you may now 
be laughing and thinking how clever you are at inventing, see that 
you don't repent your own inventions afterward. 

I will not be provoked and will not reply with unfriendly sallies 
against the many worthy representatives of the U.S. press gathered 
here. I will only add that a lie, however long its legs, can never keep 
pace with the truth. (Applause.) 

QUESTION: Was it only a coincidence that the Soviet Union 
sent a rocket to the moon on the eve of your arrival here, and a 
related question: Does the sending of the emblem indicate any desire 
to claim possession of the moon? 

KHRUSHCHEV: The coincidence of my trip to the United 
States with the sending of a Soviet rocket to the moon is a mere, 


but I would say a pleasant, coincidence. (Laughter.) If anyone among 
you doubts that it was a coincidence, I would suggest that he ask 
your scientists let your scientists tell him about it Try and tell your 
scientists to time the launching of a moon rocket to such-and-such 
a date, and see what comes of it. (Laughter, applause.) 

And now, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to answer the 
second part of the question whether the delivery of a pennant to 
the moon gives the Soviet Union cause for any sort of proprietary 
claim to the moon. Let there be no mistake I have no wish to hurt 
anyone's feelings but we are people of different continents and dif- 
ferent ways of thinking. 

Those who put the question in that way think in terms of private 
capitalist psychology, while I belong to the socialist system and am 
a man of a new world outlook and new concepts. In our country, the 
concept "mine" is withering away, while a new concept, "ours," is 
gaining ground. That is why we regard the launching of a space rocket 
and the delivery of our pennant to the moon as our achievement 
And when we say "our," we imply all the countries of the world, that 
is, we imply that it is also your achievement and the achievement 
of all people living on earth. (Applause.) 

QUESTION: What are the major possibilities for increasing trade 
between the United States and the Soviet Union, particularly in 
consumer goods? In brief, what particularly do you want to buy from 
us and what particularly do you wish to sell to us? 

KHRUSHCHEV: What we want most particularly is an end to 
trade discrimination. That is the most important thing. All that you 
can make we can make too, and we have made some things before 
you. (Laughter.) We do not ask for anything. You are today turning 
out some goods in greater quantities than we, but that is due to 
historical circumstances. Your country took the path of capitalist 
development much earlier than ours, and you consequently devel- 
oped your economy more than pre-Revolutionary Russia did. But 
you know that great changes have now occurred in the development 
of our economy. We are still some way off, some distance away from 
you. But we are now closing in like this (animation in the audience 
as Khrushchev demonstrates with his hands how the distance Be- 
tween the U.S. economy and that of the Soviet Union is shrinking), 
and I think the day is not far distant when we will change places 
like this in that movement. We are catching up with you in economic 
progress, and the time is not far distant when we will move into 
the lead. 


I want to tell you that I did not come to the United States with 
a long arm to dig my hand into your banks. That is yours. We have 
enough of our own. (Laughter.) I am not going to hold out my hat so 
that everyone may throw into it what he thinks he can spare. (. Ani- 
mation.) We are proud of our system, our people, our state and our 
achievements. We want to be good trading partners with you, and 
with all other countries. As for expanding trade between our coun- 
tries, the way we see it, we should buy what we need and you should 
sell what you think you can. 

I do not now propose to hold specific trade negotiations. I did 
not take along anyone from the Ministry of Foreign Trade quite 
deliberately, so that none would think that I had come with a long 
arm to rich Uncle Sam. (Laughter.) 

If you show any desire to expand trade, then there will be 
Soviet representatives on hand to reach concrete agreement on the 
matter. They will then speak specifically of what you can sell and 
what we should like to buy from you. 

QUESTION: In your opening remarks, Mr. Khrushchev, you 
spoke about avoiding outside interference in the affairs of other 
nations. How, then, do you justify Russian armed interference in 

KHRUSHCHEV: The so-called Hungarian question, you see, has 
stuck like a dead rat in the throat of some people they are dis- 
gusted with it and yet cannot spit it out (Laughter.) If you want to 
give our talk that particular twist, I can produce quite a few dead 
cats. They will be fresher than the question of the Hungarian events. 

As regards Hungary, I have spoken about it quite exhaustively 
in public on many occasions. I was particularly pleased and gratified 
to answer before the Hungarian people when I was in Hungary as 
a guest, representing our valiant Soviet Union. It was shortly after 
the Hungarian events. All Hungary applauded us, and I know of no 
fuller or better way in which the Hungarians could have expressed 
their true attitude toward the Soviet Union. We have long since 
settled all matters with Hungary and are advancing triumphantly 
shoulder to shoulder. They are building socialism and we are build- 
ing communism. Our goals coincide our path is one and so is our 

I can add that I will not ask you any counter-questions of this 
kind, because I have come to the United States with other aims, 
because I've come with good intentions and an open heart. I have 
come here, not to dig up various questions so as to aggravate rela- 


Lions between our two countries, between our governments, but to 
Improve existing relations, to remove, if I may say so, the road blocks 
that hinder a rapprochement of our countries. That is why I don't 
want to do anything that might conflict with that main objective 
improvement of relations between our countries and cessation of the 
state of cold war anything that might obstruct the establishment 
of friendship and the promotion of world peace. 

QUESTION: While you are here, Mr. Chairman, will you seek 
to arrange with President Eisenhower a United States-Soviet civil 
air agreement to exchange airline operating rights? 

KHRUSHCHEV: That is a very concrete question and, of course, 
it is not on the agenda of our conversations, because it is a 
minor question and a specific one. But we would be prepared to 
establish air communications between our two countries. Our coun- 
try has air communications with many countries of Europe and Asia. 
If the U.S. Government should wish to reach such an agreement, I 
hardly think that we the President and I, Chairman of the Council 
of Ministers need handle it. Our Ministers can do it 

QUESTION: We are always anxious to get a little advance news 
too, Mr. Khrushchev. What is your time schedule for throwing a 
man to the moon? 

KHRUSHCHEV: You used a rather unfortunate phrase when you 
said 'throwing a man." We are not going to "throw" a man, because 
we value man highly and will not "throw" anyone. We will send a 
man into outer space when appropriate technical conditions have 
been developed. There are still no such conditions on hand. We don't 
want to "throw" anyone in the sense, so to say, of throwing him over- 
board. We value people. 

QUESTION: Would Russia be willing to share with Canada and 
the United States, her Arctic neighbors, the information which Rus- 
sian scientists have obtained in their extensive and successful Arctic 

KHRUSHCHEV: I think so. All countries should cooperate in the 
matter. That would be useful Generally speaking, we oppose all 
kinds of monopoly. (Laughter, applause.) 

QUESTION: What is the purpose of your visit to Peking after 
your American tour? 

KHRUSHCHEV: That is apparently the most "difficult" question. 
(Laughter.) Comrades I beg your pardon, there are both "com- 
rades" and "gentlemen" here. (Laughter,) Habit tells. Besides, our 
Soviet journalists are present here, whom it is our custom to address 


with the word "comrades." It is the usual form of address. Further- 
more, I do not want to waive the supposition that among you, too, 
there are those who would not object to my calling them "comrades." 
(Animation.) And so, I am addressing you gentlemen. (Laughter.) 
I think that journalists not only write, but also read. (Laughter.) 
If journalists do read, they should recall that on October 1, 1959, 
it will be ten years since state power was won by the American 
here you are; now you will say, "See what Khrushchev is thinking 
about (laughter), we've caught him red-handed" (laughter) since 
state power was won by the Chinese working class and China's work- 
ing peasantry. It will be ten years since people's rule was established 
in China. The Chinese people solemnly celebrate this day and we, 
too, celebrate this holiday of our friends. We believe, for example, 
that there may come a time when a new era will be computed from 
the day of the October Revolution. But that is a thing of the future 
The Chinese, too, treasure their victory and we respect their love 
of their achievements. When the Chinese People's Republic cele- 
brated its fifth anniversary, I headed the Soviet delegation at the 
festivities in Peking. We have now been invited by the Chinese Gov- 
ernment to send a delegation to the celebration of the tenth anni- 
versary as well. It so happens that I must be back in the Soviet 
Union on September 28 and fly to Peking the next day. It will be a 
strain on me, of course, but I think it will also be a great honor to 
be among our friends in China. The Soviet delegation will leave for 
the Chinese People's Republic before my return to Moscow. In mv 
absence it will be led by Comrade Suslov. 

QUESTION: Mr. Chairman, can you summarize for us in your 
speech today, have you offered any specifically new proposals that 
have not been put forward before for easing world tension? 

KHRUSHCHEV: We must first settle those questions that have 
already been brought up and await settlement. Thinking up new 
questions while the old ones have yet to be settled would mean 
evading the solution of cardinal problems. If I am told that I have 
not raised any new questions in my speech, I will agree. It would 
not be out of place at this point to recall the Russian saying: Repe- 
tition is the mother of learning. We will work hard to remove the 
obstacles hindering a rapprochement of peoples and to put out the 
sparks that may set off the frames of war. Those sparks must be 
stamped out by all means and pressing issues must be settled, so 
that peace can be assured for all nations. 

QUESTION: There is great interest here, Mr. Khrushchev, in the 


ituation of the various nationalities, including the Jewish popula- 
ion, in the Soviet Union. Can you say a few words for us on that 

KHRUSHCHEV: In the Soviet Union there is no national question 
n the sense in which you understand it All nationalities live in 
riendship and all have equal rights. In our country, the attitude 
oward anyone is not determined by his nationality or his religion. 
That is a matter for every man's own conscience. We look upon a 
nan primarily as a man. In our country, all nationalities Russians, 
Jkrainians, Turkmens, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Byelorussians, Georgians, 
Armenians, Kalmyks, Jews if I were to list all the peoples of the 
Soviet Union, it would take more time than has been set apart for 
his press conference they all live in peace and harmony. We are 
>roud of the fact that a multinational state such as the Soviet Union 
s solid and is making good progress. All the peoples of our country 
rust each other and are advancing shoulder to shoulder toward their 
:ommon goal, communism. The position of our country's Jewish 
3Opulation, for example, is characterized, among other things, by the 
following fact: Jews hold a worthy place among those who made 
he successful launching of the moon rocket possible. 

QUESTION: It is frequently attributed to you, Mr. Khrushchev, 
ihat at a diplomatic reception you said that you would bury us. 
[f you didn't say it, you could deny it; and if you did say it, could 
pou please explain what you meant? 

'" KHRUSHCHEV: There is only a small section of the American 
people in this hall. My life would be too short to bury every one 
:>f you if this were to occur to me. (Laughter.) I did speak about 
it, but my statement has been deliberately misconstrued. It was not 
a question of any physical burial of anyone at any time but of how 
the social system changes in the course of the historical progress 
rf society. Every educated person knows that there is now more 
than one social system in the world. The various states, the various 
peoples have different systems. The social system changes as society 
develops. There was the feudal system. It was superseded by capi- 
talism. Capitalism was more progressive than feudalism. Capitalism^ 
:reated better conditions than feudalism for the development of the 
productive forces. But capitalism engendered irreconcilable contra- 
dictions. As it outlives itself, every system gives birth to its successors. 
Capitalism, as Marx, Engels and Lenin have proved, will be suc- 
ceeded by communism. We believe in that. Many of you do not. 
But among you, too, there are people who believe in that 


At the reception concerned, I said that in the course of historical 
progress and in the historical sense, capitalism would be buried and 
communism would come to replace capitalism. You will say that this 
is out of the question. But then the feudal lords burned at the stake 
those who fought against feudalism and yet capitalism won out 
Capitalism fights against communism. I am convinced that the winner 
will be communism, a social system which creates better conditions 
for the development of a country's productive forces, enables every 
individual to prove his worth and guarantees complete freedom for 
society, for every member of society. You may disagpwte with me. I 
disagree with you. What are we to do, then? We pust coexist Live 
on under capitalism, and we will build communism. The new and 
progressive will win; and the old and moribund wifl die. You believe 
that the capitalist system is more productive, that it creates better 
conditions for social progress, that it will win. But the brief history 
of our Soviet state does not speak in favor of capitalism. What place 
did Russia hold for economic development before the Revolution? 
She was backward and illiterate. And now we have a powerful econ- 
omy, our science and culture are highly developed 

I don't recall just how many engineers we graduate annually 

V. P. YELUTIN*: Last year 94,000 engineers were graduated and 
106,000 this year, or three times as many as in the United States. 

KHRUSHCHEV: Some say in your country that if the USSR will 
have more scientists, we will perish. We are willing to "perish" in that 
sense, we are seeing to it that there are more scientists in our 
country, that all our people are educated, because communism can- 
not be built unless we do so. Communism is a scienca 

Thank you. (Stormy, prolonged applause.) 

In conclusion William Lawrence, Chairman of the National Press Club, on 
behalf of the club's members, thanked N. S. Khrushchev for his address and 
replies to questions. 



September 16, 1959 

On September 16, N. S. Khrushchev visited the U.S. Congress 
at the invitation of Senator J. W. Fulbright, Chairman of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee. The meeting was attended by 25 Sen- 
*Minister of Higher Education of the USSR. 


ators leaders of Congress and members of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee. 

In his opening remarks, Fulbright welcomed N. S. Khrushchev, 
Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. **We are glad 
to see you here," he said, "and are glad that you are going to talk 
with the President on important matters pertaining to the relations 
between our countries. The Soviet Union and the United States are 
strong powers. The Soviet people and the Americans are gifted 
people. The possibilities of our countries are unlimited." Fulbright 
stressed that armaments reduction and peaceful coexistence would 
help to promote jj^ace and security and to raise the Mving standards 
of all peoples. "I want to assure you," he went on, "that our people, 
like your own, do not want war. We must find ways of ruling out 
the possibility of war resulting from some accident and must provide 
ways of peaceful economic competition.** 

N. S. Khrushchev thanked Fulbright for his invitation to meet 
Congressional leaders and members of the Senate Foreign Relations 

"I fully agree with everything you have just said/* N. S. Khrush- 
chev continued "You, gentlemen of the Senate, hold a position of 
responsibility, and the trend in the policies of so powerful a state 
as the United States depends largely on you. I always follow your 
speeches with attention and know many of you from them. Now we 
have met in person. You will not be surprised if I say that I do not 
subscribe to everything you say in your speeches. There is a Russian 
saying: 'Break bread with me, but speak your mind.' But let us not 
now begin recollecting when and which Senator said something 
bad or something good. That is a thing of the past. Let us take 
guidance in political wisdom and think of the future, of how to guar- 
antee peace and the security of nations. 

"We Soviet people always think highly of the achievements of 
the American people, rejoice in these achievements, are a little 
envious at times, and want first to bring our economy level with 
yours, then gather strength and outstrip you. I think our peoples 
and future generations would be grateful to both of us if we shifted 
our efforts from the arms race to competition in developing economy 
and culture, and raising living standards. We are willing, I think 
this problem can be solved only if prejudices are given up and a 
new course is adopted without hesitation a course of friendship and 

"I realize that it is not always easy to change the trend in 


relations between states, discard the old or obsolescent and- adopt 
the new and progressive. Here is an example from everyday reality: 
Sometimes an elderly 'man puts on a new pair of shoes and wears 
them 1 " for a while, but then flings them off and puts on the old pair. 
The new pair hurts his corns, while he is accustomed to the old one 
which seems to fit better. It is sometimes the same in human society. 
Some people are apt to reject the new and try to preserve the old. 

"Here is another example: You expect a daughter but your wife 
gives birth to a son, or while you expect a granddaughter, a grandson 
is born. You are disappointed, of course, but it cannot be helped, 
nature doesn't always comply with man's will. (Animation.) 

"The peoples have always fought for progress. In all the devel- 
oped countries, revolutions occurred in one form or another when 
the need arose to pass from feudalism to capitalism. When you 
fought for your independence against Britain, whose colony the 
United States was, the British king did not send you messages of 
greeting and you won your independence in an armed struggle. The 
Civil War which the North waged against the South was also a 
progressive struggle, and the name of Lincoln, who led that struggle 
for man's freedom, will live through the ages. 

"A new social system, the socialist system, is being born now. 
At first socialism won in one country, Russia; now it has triumphed 
in many countries of Europe and Asia 

"You do not accept this system, but I have already said that 
when you want a grandson and a granddaughter is born instead, there 
is nothing you can do about it Still less does the rise of a new system 
in any country depend on the will of other countries. If everybody 
recognizes the principle of noninterference in the internal affairs of 
other countries, which means recognizing the right of the people in 
each country to choose the political organization, the system they 
prefer, then universal peace will be assured. That is all we want 

'We have all we need for the expansion of our economy and 
do not covet the riches of other countries. Today we are successfully 
building communism. Other peoples who have taken the path of 
socialist development have by their experience also borne out the 
theoretical forecasts of scientific communism. We consider commu- 
nism to be the best system for us. We do not ask for your approval. 
What we want is not to be interfered with. 

"Changes in social formation in human society are not a process 
that occurs in all countries simultaneously. When and how the social 
system of a country changes is the affair of its own people. Recognize 


CAafrman Khrushchev and President Eisenhower in Washington. 


this, and peace will be assured If you do not recognize it, war will be 
unavoidable. If you are going to seek a forcible change in the system 
of other countries, the peoples of those countries will naturally have 
to defend themselves. And that will mean war! 

"Allow me to take this opportunity of making a few critical 
remarks about you. I should like to state frankly that the decision 
of your Congress to appropriate funds for subversive activities in the 
socialist countries does not further peaceful coexistence and the cause 
of peace. It is an unwise decision. What is more, to use the manufac- 
turer's phrase, it is not a profitable enterprise; the invested capital 
is yielding no interest in this particular instance. (Animation.) 

"I don't want to sound didactic the policy you make is your 
own responsibility. I don't know whether you permit your guests to 
express their views, but we in the Soviet Union welcome it when 
our visitors speak their mind, even if we disagree with them. 

"Thank you. In conclusion, I want to stress once more that all we 
want is peace and friendship with the American people and with 
all the peoples of the world. Let us do a good thing, the responsibility 
resting on us is great and we must live up to the expectations of the 
peoples. And the peoples want just one thing peace. If you like 
your capitalist system, carry on as you have done so far, and God 
be with you. As for us, we like the socialist system, so don't interfere 
with our living as we choose. 

"There was a time when people were burned at the stake be- 
cause they insisted that the earth revolved. But today you will not 
find a simpleton who would not believe it. Why will you not admit, 
then, that your present views of communism may be wrong? But, 
I repeat, that is your affair. Let us recognize the status quo* there 
exist socialist and capitalist countries in the world, so let us live in 
this existing world of ours on the basis of peaceful coexistence. 

"Since I was the first to make some critical remarks about you, 
I thereby gave you a chance to do likewise. I am willing to hear your 
criticisms and to reply to them, and also to answer any questions you 
may ask" (Applause.) 

Fulbright said fliat he liked N. S. Khrushchev's remarks. He 
said it was frank talk and they were pleased to have such a talk 
Speaking of N. S. Khrushchev's remarks about Congress appropriat- 
ing funds for subversive activities, Fulbright contradicted the remark, 
saying that "we interpret words differently." "We don't think it is so," 
said Fulbright, **we don't want to interfere in the internal affairs of 


other countries. On the contrary, we have, for example, given the 
Philippines a chance to win freedom. But I say that in passing." 

Fulbright then accused some socialist countries of "trying to 
impose their regime on others by force." 

"When discussing a meeting with your President," N. S. Khrush- 
chev replied, "we agreed to talk about the relations between our two 
countries. Neither he nor I have been empowered to speak for any 
third country. If you have any complaints against a socialist country, 
negotiate with it, apply directly to its government Go-betweens are 
undesirable in matters such as this. I represent the Soviet Union here 
and am willing to answer any question that concerns the Soviet 

"One more question," Fulbright said. "You are convinced that 
your system is better than ours * 

"Absolutely convinced," N. S. Khrushchev replied 

"But what happens," Fulbright continued, "if it suddenly devel- 
ops that the capitalist system is better and that more and more 
people prefer capitalism to socialism? Will you put up with that, 
or will you use force to hold your positions?" 

"Let us not read the tea leaves," N. S. Khrushchev said, "but if 
history were to confirm that the capitalist system really offers the 
best opportunities of developing the productive forces of society and 
of providing a better life for man and we don't believe that a kopek's 
worth I would be the first to vote against communism. If I really 
satisfied myself as to the superiority of capitalism over communism," 
N. S. Khrushchev said sarcastically, "then I would consider which 
way to turn and whether I should join the Republicans or the Demo- 
crats, though there is hardly any difference between them. It would 
be a difficult choice to make." (Laughter.) 

"I can tell you which party is better," Fulbright put in, amidst 
general animation. 

"Don't prompt me," N. S. Khrushchev continued. "I want to 
make my own choice. (Laughter.) I know which party you represent, 
but I'm not sure which of the two parties is better. I don't want to 
interfere in your internal affairs." (Animation.) 

Fulbright asked another question whether the Soviet Union 
was prepared to agree to any of its allies choosing a two-party system. 

"Questions like that are decided by the peoples themselves," 
N. S. Khrushchev replied. 

The next to speak was Senator Hayden, a veteran of the U.S. 
Senate and member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He 


asked N. S. Khrushchev whether he favored the expansion of cultural 
and scientific exchanges between the USSR and the USA. 

"Yes," N. S. Khrushchev replied, "we advocate the broadest pos- 
sible cultural and scientific exchange between our countries. But as 
far as we know, it is not we who are holding things up. The counter- 
proposal of the American side for an agreement on cultural relations 
in 1960-1961, far from envisaging broader relations, is in fact aimed 
at reducing them." 

G. A. Zhukov, Chairman of the State Committee on Cultural 
Relations, who was present, informed the audience that the U.S. 
counter-proposal provided for only two major events in the sphere 
of artistic exchange in 1960 and only one major event in 1961. None 
of the 17 Soviet proposals for technical exchange were accepted by 
the U.S. side. As regards the U.S. proposals for technical exchange, 
the Soviet delegation has already agreed to a number of measures 
with the proviso that the State Department, in turn, accept at least 
some of the Soviet proposals. 

Senator Lyndon Johnson, Democratic majority leader, asked 
whether the Soviet Union would agree to cooperation between Soviet 
and U.S. scientists in exploring outer space. 

"By all means," N. S. Khrushchev replied 

"Then why did you refuse to take part in the work of the UN 
Outer Space Committee?" Johnson asked. 

"You know why," N. S. Khrushchev replied "You wanted to 
place us in the position of a poor relation on that committee, but we 
will not have that. We offered you cooperation on a parity basis, 
but you turned it down. Then we refused to participate in the work 
of the UN Committee. You know perfectly well that at the moment 
only you and we alone can engage, in practice, in the exploration of 
outer space. Yet you wanted to push us out into the backyard on the 
UN Committee. We will never consent to be put in so humiliating 
a position. We refuse to be lectured in a committee in which you 
have a majority. Do not injure our self-respect and we will not injure 
yours. Then cooperation will be assured" 

"I want to give the floor to a spokesman for the Congress 
minority and an experienced polemicist, Senate Republican Leader 
Dirksen," said Fulbright. 

Everett M. Dirksen said he had two questions. First he asked 
whether there was "any hope" of the Soviet Union's lifting control 
over foreign correspondents' news dispatches. 

"Every nation has its traditions," N. S. Khrushchev said, "and 


every country has its Constitution. In your country the newspapers 
see fit to print every possible slanderous fabrication and every pos- 
sible comment, often provocative and nothing short of an outright 
appeal to war. But in the Soviet Union, anyone who took it into his 
head to write an article of that kind would be prosecuted, because 
we have a law prohibiting war propaganda Your correspondents send 
any information or article from the Soviet Union quite freely unless 
it distorts the facts, unless it is grossly slanderous and insulting to 
the Soviet people, and unless it incites to war. 

"Many of your correspondents send fairly sensible articles and 
our press even reprints some of them. But there are also correspond- 
ents who abuse the freedom of the press." 

"Your correspondents working in the U.S. are not controlled," 
Dirksen observed 

N. S. Khrushchev replied that if any Soviet correspondent 
working in the United States were to send a false report, he would 
be instantly dismissed by his editorial office. Soviet journalists per- 
form their mission honestly, while some of the Western correspond- 
ents working in Moscow have no scruples about writing stuff that 
if it were handed to the clerk in the telegraph office for transmission 
she would be outraged and would refuse to send such rot abroad 
We have no censorship. There is only control to prevent abuse of 
the freedom of the press. We do not want to help foment hostility and 
hatred between peoples by adopting an overconciliatory attitude. 

We want international friendship and cooperation. 

Zhukov offered to provide Senator Dirksen with factual data 
on abuses of the freedom of the press by some foreign correspond- 
ents working in Moscow. Dirksen made no reply. 

Dirksen next asked whether foreigners would be allowed un- 
restricted freedom of travel in the Soviet Union. He claimed that 
Soviet people could travel in the USA without any restrictions. 

"Let us agree," N. S. Khrushchev said, "that for every kilometer 
which Soviet people travel on U.S. territory, we will let American 
travelers do two kilometers in the Soviet Union." 

A. I. Adzhubei, Deputy to the Supreme Soviet, said that on one 
occasion he had even been refused permission to fly over the United 
States, to say nothing of traveling across its territory, although he 
had applied for a visa in person to Secretary of State Dulles. He 
added that Soviet correspondents coming to New York to cover the 
work of the UN General Assembly are allowed to use only specified 


"I have been told," N. S. Khrushchev observed, 'that Soviet 
diplomats cannot even travel from Washington to New York without 
special permission. But I will not criticize your internal regulations. 
I only wish to ask you what you want. You say that you want to 
travel where you please. You want it for a very definite purpose. 
Don't try to force anyone's bedroom door if it is locked That is 
indecent What is this taste you have for peeping through keyholes? 
You want us to lift travel restrictions in the Soviet Union, do you? 
Then let us achieve agreement Let us abolish military bases on 
foreign soil and withdraw troops from foreign territory to within 
national boundaries. I assure you that you would then be allowed to 
travel wherever you please. But you have surrounded us with mili- 
tary bases and want to travel freely in our country and scout our 
military bases. We call that military reconnaissance. That is why we 
restrict certain areas of importance to our country's defense." 

"Our guest would be a most formidable antagonist in any par- 
liamentary forum anywhere in the world," said Senator Russell, 
Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, amidst general 

"Not an antagonist, but a defender," N. S. E3irushchev remarked 

"You have a good knowledge of many things in this country," 
Russell continued "But I am amazed to hear that you think we 
want to interfere in your internal affairs. I have been on the Senate 
Committee for 25 years but know nothing about appropriations for 
subversive work in other countries. I am convinced that today the 
people of the Soviet Union live better than ever before." 

"Quite right," N. S. Khrushchev said 

"And will live still better," Russell went on. "We don't intend 
to interfere in your internal affairs, but I would like to ask this: You 
support national self-determination; in light of this, are you prepared 
to let the people of East Germany decide their destiny themselves 
by a plebiscite?" 

N. S. Khrushchev reminded the audience that it had been agreed' 
at the beginning of the interview not to touch upon matters relating 
to a third 1 country. 

"I am a Russian," he said, "and represent the Soviet Union here. 
You, however, are interested in German affairs. If you have any 
questions on that score, send them to the Prime Minister- of the 
German Democratic Republic and he will supply you with the in- 
formation you want The address is well known -Grotewohl, Berlin. 
They'll get there." (Animation.) 


"You are bearing out what I said about your being a fine polem- 
icist," Russell commented, with some embarrassment **I have one 
more question. You gave a vivid account of the launching of the 
Soviet moon rocket We have had setbacks in launching rockets. 
What about you?" 

"Why do you ask me?" N. S. Khrushchev said with a smile 
"You had better ask Nixon he answered your question when he 
said that the launching of our moon rocket had miscarried three 
times. He knows better how things are with us. (Laughter.) Nixon 
said, he was using information from a secret source, but of course he 
didn't specify the source you cannot disclose a secret such as that, 
because it is an invention. 

"But if you like, I can answer that question, too. To be sure, 
launching a rocket into space is no simple matter. It takes a great 
deal of effort I will tell you a secret our scientists expected to 
launch a moon rocket a week ago. The rocket was prepared and put 
on the launching site, but when the equipment was being tested it 
was found to be not working smoothly enough. Then, to be on the 
safe side, our scientists replaced the rocket by another. It was that 
second rocket which was launched. But the first rocket is intact, and 
if you like, we can launch it too. 

"That was how matters stood. I can swear on the Bible that this 
is so. Let Nixon do likewise." ( General laughter, applause.) 

Senator Russell thanked N. S. Khrushchev and said that the 
Soviet moon shot was an outstanding achievement of Soviet science, 
on which Americans sincerely congratulated Soviet scientists. 

"Thank you," N. S. Khrushchev said. "We are satisfied with the 
results of the work done by our scientists." 

Senator Theodore F. Green, a Senate veteran and ex-Chairman 
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asked whether N. S. 
Khrushchev considered "free elections" possible in West and East 
Germany in the next six months. 

N. S. Khrushchev reminded the audience that those taking part 
in the interview had agreed not to touch upon the internal affairs of 
a third country. Since, however, the German question comes within 
the competence of the Great Powers that fought against Hitler Ger- 
many, he said he was willing to comment on the matter. 

"You are familiar with our attitude," N. S. Khrushchev said. 
"We think it necessary to reckon with the fact that there now are 
two sovereign states with different social systems on the former ter- 
ritory of Germany. Let the Germans decide for themselves how they 


should live in the future. It will be as they decide. I cannot answer 
you on behalf of Comrade Grotewohl or Herr Adenauer. Let them 
rather meet without an interpreter." 

Senator Green then asked how elections were held in the Soviet 
Union and whether it was true that in the USSR nominations were 
made by only one party and votes could be cast only for one nominee 

"Not exactly," N. S. Khrushchev replied. "About 40 per cent of 
the deputies to the parliaments of the Soviet Union and Union 
Republics, and to the regional and district Soviets of Working Peo- 
ple's Deputies are not Party members. There is indeed only one 
party in the Soviet Union. In the early period, when we still had 
antagonistic classes, other parties as well were represented m our 
parliament. But subsequently the structure of our society changed. 
Today we have no antagonistic classes, the interests of all the working 
people are represented by the Communist Party, the party of the 
working people. During the election campaign nominations are made 
as follows: 

"Collectives of working people nominate various candidates, the 
number of candidates being unlimited. Every collective campaigns 
for its own nominee. Then representatives of the collectives of work- 
ing people, elected by democratic procedure, get together and decide 
by vote which nominee should be left on the ticket as the fittest 
And it is for him that the electors vote. 

"You have a different election system. That is a matter oi 
tradition. Every nation establishes the kind of system it prefers/ 

Senator Wiley, ex-Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, asked the following question: 

"On your way to this country, you doubtless set yourself s 
definite goal What do you expect to accomplish by your U.S. trip?' 

"I might address the same question to you, Senator," N. S, 
Khrushchev replied. "So far as we are concerned, we are willing tc 
take any steps to ensure peace, particularly in the matter of disarma- 
ment But reaching agreement requires a mutual desire to achieve 
useful results. Take the disarmament question. Are you prepared novi 
to abolish military bases on foreign soil and withdraw your troop* 
to within your national boundaries? We are! 

"You claim that the socialist system in countries such as Polanc 
and Hungary, where we have our troops for the time being, survives 
solely thanks to their presence there. 

"Very well, would you like to put yourself to a test? You wil 
have the opportunity of seeing how the Poles manage their affairs 


in the absence of foreign troops. You say that the Government of ti 
German Democratic Republic is maintained only by our bayonet 
Let us agree to withdraw your troops and ours to within the respe< 
tive national boundaries and see what happens. Are you willing 
(The Senator keeps silent for a long f time.) Let us sign an agreemer 
to withdraw troops. Let the soldiers go home. How happy thei 
mothers and their girls will be to embrace them! Are you willing 
(The Senator says nothing.) There you are. You 'yourself are hes 
tant to try it How can I say, then, what results my trip will yield 
I don't know how far you are willing to go, but a great deal depend 
on the U.S. Senate." 

Fulbright, who was presiding, said that the Senators were happ 
to have met N. S. Khrushchev and discussed with him a number c 
questions of interest to them. He said he was not sure that anythin 
had been solved by the meeting but thought there was now bette 
mutual understanding, and that meant a lot 

N. S. Khrushchev thanked the Senators and left the premises c 
the Foreign Relations Committee of the U.S. Senate. 



N. S. Khrushchev, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of tfc 
USSR, and Madame Khrushchova gave a dinner, on the evening c 
September 16, for President Eisenhower and Mrs. Eisenhower in th 
Soviet Embassy in Washington. 

During the dinner N. S. Khrushchev and President Dwight I 
Eisenhower exchanged speeches. 


This is the second day of our stay in the United States. I dori 
know whether you are pleased with your guests, but the guests ar 
very well pleased with their hosts. We like our stay in your countr] 
but have no fear, I shall not ask for it to be prolonged (Animation. 
My time is limited. I will fly to China literally the day after m; 
return from the United States. There will be festivities there on th 
occasion of the tenth anniversary of the People's Republic. It is nc 
to make a secret deal that I will fly there, but to celebrate the bi 
national holiday of People's China. 

My friends and I have had a fine day today. You are re* 
exploiters, I must say, and have made a good job of exploiting u 
(Animation.) Mr. Lodge has been empowered to do so, and he hs 


worn us out completely. (Laughter.) I don't know whether the ex- 
ploiters are satisfied with us, but on this particular occasion the 
exploited are satisfied with their exploiters. (Laughter.) 

We had an interesting time at your agricultural research center. 
You can be proud of it. We saw livestock and poultry there they 
are excellent And I did not feel in the least that they had any objec- 
tion to our representing a socialist country in a capitalist one. They 
realized the necessity of coexistence. (Laughter.) 

My next visit today was to the National Press Club. Journalists 
are impetuous, quick-witted people. You and I, Mr. President, are 
able to appreciate each other's plight when meeting journalists. 
(Laughter.) In any case, I am hale and hearty, as you see, and I 
think that speaks well for the meeting. As for what they will report, 
we will know that tomorrow. It is something I cannot guess. There 
were different people there, and they will probably report differently. 

Then we toured the city of Washington. I bear Mr. Lodge no 
grudge on this point. We saw little because time was short But we 
did see the best section of the city. It is a wonderful city. We saw 
the Lincoln Memorial and paid homage to that great, most human 
of humans in U.S. history, whose memory as a champion of freedom 
will live through the ages. 

Then there was the talk with the members of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee. I don't know whether the Senators were 

Send-off at the railway station in Washington. 

pleased with me. I cannot speak for them. But I am pleased, and 
think that makes a half success. (Animation.) If the Senators are 
also pleased with me, I would take that to be a complete success, 
Jbut I don't know if they are. 

I believe I speak for all my companions when I say that we are 
very pleased with this evening and with your presence, Mr. President, 
the presence of your wife and your colleagues, at so distinguished a 
dinner. I feel sure perhaps because I want it very badly that our 
coming at your invitation, Mr. President for we would not have 
come to you otherwise and your forthcoming visit to our country 
will help to thaw international relations; the ice of the cold war has 
not only cracked but has indeed, begun to crumble. 

I think that through joint effort we will reach the goal of actu- 
ally melting the ice and establishing normal living conditions for 
our peoples and good, friendly relations between our countries. 

I raise this glass of champagne and invite all the guests to follow 
suit I propose this toast to the President of the United States. I 
don't know whether I have the right, whether I have your permission, 
but we regard you as our good friend. You have shown how thor- 
oughly scrupulous you are I don't quite know whether the term is 
suitable to give an exact idea of how you performed your duty when 
you were Allied Commander-in-Chief during the Second World War. 
When you come to our country, you will feel the warmth which our 
people will express. But I should like to ask you, when you feel that 
warmth, not to draw a line between the people and the government 
as some people try to do. That is a very bad line to draw, because in 
our country the government expresses and does what the people 
think and want 

If the people express sympathy, it follows that the government 
is of the same opinion. It would never even occur to me that there 
is any need to test this unity. During your stay in the USSR you will 
be able to satisfy yourself about the solid unity <of our people and 
government. We need only wink to understand each other. Let those 
who doubt come to us and see this unity for themselves. 

I raise this glass of champagne and invite you to drink to the 
health of the President; to your health, Mrs. Eisenhower; to yours, 
dear guests, ladies and gentlemen; to all present here. Although this 
wine is cold, may our relations grow warmer, may the atmosphere 
mellow, so as to melt the ice of the cold war and create favorable 
conditions for the peaceful coexistence of states, of our peoples. 
Your health! ( Applause.) 


IN NEW YORK September 17-19 

N. S. Khrushchev and his party arrived in New York on September 
17. Richard C. Patterson, representative of the municipal authority, 
welcomed N. S. Khrushchev at the station. 

Replying to his greetings, N. S. Khrushchev said: 


Allow me to thank you for your warm words on my own behalf 
and on the behalf of my family, as well as those accompanying me. 

I was very glad to receive the invitation to visit New York. I 
express to you my gratitude for this invitation. 

I would like to use this opportunity and convey wishes of best 
success to the citizens of New York in their work, success in their 
private lives and wish them happiness and well-being. 

It is generally known that New York is a major industrial city, 
a leading business center of the United States. In the past I myself 
was a worker and am therefore especially glad to have the oppor- 
tunity of greeting the working people who create material values for 

I am certain that the meetings and talks which I will have in 
New York with representatives of various sections of the population 
will facilitate a better understanding between our countries. This will 
facilitate the adjustment of friendly relations between our states and 
the strengthening of peace throughout the world. 

I thank you for your attention. 




Robert F. Wagner, Mayor of New York, gave a luncheon in honor 
of N. S. Khrushchev, Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, on 
September 17. 

The Mayor made a speech of welcome. Henry Cabot Lodge, the 
President's special representative, also made a speech. 

N. S. Khrushchev delivered a speech as well. 


Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for the honor you have shown me today. 
I very nearly called you Robert Petrovich Wagner. In my youth 


when I worked at a factory, our manager was an engineer by the 
name of Robert Petrovich Wagner. (Animation, applause.) But, of 
course, I am not confusing you with that other Wagner; you only 
have the same names and surnames. (Laughter.) 

I should like to thank you most sincerely for this wonderful 
reception and, in particular, for the memorial medallion of your city 
that you have presented to me, and for the message to the peoples 
of the Soviet Union as a sign of respect and friendship between our 
countries. (Applause.) 

I should like to take this opportunity again to address words of 
profound appreciation to the President of the United States, Dwight 
Eisenhower. We made his acquaintance immediately after the war, 
when he visited our Country. The military services rendered by Gen- 
eral Eisenhower as Allied Commander-in-Chief in Western Europe 
are valued highly in our country. We fought well together with you 
against Nazi Germany. (Stormy applause.) It is only due to President 
Eisenhower's invitation that I have the opportunity of being with 
you today. 

My respect for Mr. Eisenhower has grown still more since 
this step. His decision to invite Khrushchev to America was not an 
easy one. Few Americans would have dared to take such a step. To 
do so one had to be a big man and, what is more, to understand big 
politics. (Applause.) I am informed that some of the American political 
leaders are opposed to this decision by the President The President's 
wisdom lay precisely in .the fact that despite this, he went through 
with what he had decided. It showed that he was more far-sighted 
than those who, as we say in Russia, cannot see farther than their 
own noses. (Laughter, applause.) A statesman must not only know 
what is taking place today, but must show concern for the future and 
work for its sake. (Applause.) 

I would now like to thank you as well, Mr. Mayor of the City 
of New York, because while President Eisenhower invited me to 
America, you invited me to New York, because without your invi- 
tation I could not have come to your great city. This invitation from 
you might have come, of course, merely as a sign of courtesy to the 
President. But evidently you also had a well-meaning interest in 
seeing what sort of a person Khrushchev was. (Laughter, applause.) 
To see what he was like. And so here I am before you and your 
colleagues. (Stormy applause.) 

Last but not least, I should like to thank Mr. Lodge, the Presi- 
dent's special representative, who is performing a difficult function 


and torturing me with a stiff program. (Laughter, applause.) But he 
is also torturing himself. (Laughter, applause.) I am glad of that, 
because it is easier to bear torture together. (Stormy applause.) 

Ladies and gentlemen, I have never gone in for diplomacy but 
I have a good idea of diplomatic language in relations between 
governments. If I tell you frankly what I think, let the diploma'd 
diplomats not judge me too severely for possible deviations from 
protocol. (. Animation, applause.) 

You have probably noticed that I attentively followed Mr. 
Lodge's and Mr. Wagner's speeches, and applauded both. That is why 
I should like to make things clear. After all, some might think that 
Khrushchev has been converted to your capitalist faith. (Laughter, 
applause.) Lodge and Wagner defend the capitalist system, while 
I applaud them. What am I? Among Communists I applaud Com- 
munists, and among capitalists I applaud capitalists. It follows that 
I applaud both to play up to them. (Animation, applause.) 

Let us agree upon the following beforehand I do not think 
there is any need for me to exert myself to try and make Commu- 
nists out of you. That would be a waste of energy, and I need energy 
for more important matters. (Applause.) But if anyone still nurses 
the hope that I shall fcdopt the capitalist attitude, I want to tell you 
straight from the shoulder that that is also a vain hope. (Stormy 
applause.) Were I a supporter of capitalism, I would of course try to 
come to your country, for after all the United States is the main 
root of the world capitalist system. (Animation.) But I am convinced 
that our system is much more solid and much better. 

We Russians have a proverb which says that every snipe praises 
its own bog. You extol the capitalist bog; as for us, I shall not, 
naturally, say that socialism is a bog, but you can, of course, speak 
of our system much as I speak of yours. But, as a matter of fact, the 
proponents of capitalism are now beginning to be ashamed of prais- 
ing it They are saying that it is no longer the capitalism that Marx 
wrote about, but people's capitalism. 

God knows, I seefno difference between the capitalism Marx 
wrote about and the capitalism Lodge spoke of today. (Animation.) 
I speak bluntly, so that you should know who you are dealing with. 
Such clarity improves relations: We like socialism, while capitalism 
does not suit us. If you like capitalism and I know that you like it 
carry on, and God bless you! But remember that a new social 
system, the socialist system, has come into being. It is already tread- 


ing on your heels, and we are reckoning on overtaking and outdis- 
tancing you. 

1 Let' s better speak of what ought to unite us, rather than magnify 
what might disunite us. (Stormy, prolonged applause.) 

Let's compete peacefully and let the peoples judge which system 
is better, which offers greater scope for the development of the pro- 
ductive forces, which provides better for man's well-being. We must 
respect the choice of the peoples. We must respect their eight to live 
as they choose. We must base relations between governments on the 
recognition that different social systems have an equal right to exist 
We must ensure peaceful coexistence and thereby strengthen peace 
throughout the world. (Applause.) 

I say to you in all sincerity that we want to live with you in 
friendship and peace. (Stormy, prolonged applause.) At one time 
our people watched with admiration, and I would even say with envy, 
how rapidly America developed after liberating herself from colonial 
dependence. That was a revolutionary upsurge and an exploit Your 
country swiftly built up its strength and outstripped all countries in 
economic development You still have the highest standard of living. 
You are still the richest country and the most powerful of the capi- 
talist countries, of the capitalist countries I want to specify that 
(Animation.) Just to be accurate, of course. (Applause.) 

But by the time we also had a revolution you had evidently 
forgotten the days of your own revolution and sent your troops to 
Russia to help the Russian landlords and capitalists to suppress the 
people. You may remember what came of it our people gave the 
interventionists a kick in the pants. We kicked out your troops, and 
the French, and the British, together with the White Guards. After 
that you recognized us. True, you required sixteen years of delibera- 
tion before doing it. But it was impossible not to recognize the new 
that had come into being without so much as a by-your-leave and 
had begun to live by its own will When you recognized us, we were, 
of course, in a different position than today. But now there is all the 
more reason for us to ensure peaceful coexistence. 

Now, too, some of you may not like our system. But what can 
you do? Try to use force to change the situation in our country? 
You know yourselves what that would lead to! 

But now that I have met you I can see that, like us, you too do 
not want war. (Applause.) So let us come to terms on how we are to 
secure eternal peace. (Stormy applause.) Let us broaden our con- 
tacts. Let more delegations come to you from us and to us from you. 


The only thing is that your State Department is said to be afraid of 
this and wants to cut down on contacts rather than extend them. We 
have sent them a few interesting proposals, but they are turning them 
down. That is bad. Does that imply that you want to return to the 
iron curtain? (Animation.) 

We are for broad contacts, for the promotion of cultural and 
scientific relations, for an exchange of scientific literature, for co- 
operation with the United States and with all other countries regard- 
less of their social system. (Applause.) 

In your speeches you spoke of our joint struggle against Nazi 
Germany. I set great store by the assistance you rendered us in that 
struggle. Allow me, on behalf of the Soviet Government and people, 
to convey our gratitude to the American people for that cooperation 
in the fight against the common enemy. The assistance you rendered 
us under lend-lease played its role. (Applause.) 

You are informed, of course, of the contribution of the Soviet 
people to victory over the common enemy. That contribution was the 
very largest It played a decisive role in defeating the German invad- 
ers. In the last war the Soviet people suffered the heaviest losses for 
the sake of victory over fascism. 

I had the pleasure today to shake hands with Admiral Kirk and 
Mr. Harriman, who had been ambassadors of the United States in 
Moscow during the war years, and also with the present U.S. Ambas- 
sador in Moscow, Thompson, who worked at that time in the Amer- 
ican Embassy in Moscow, making every effort to ensure victory over 
the common enemy. (Applause.) 

Mf. Harriman visited us in the Soviet Union some time ago 
and we had a pleasant friendly talk. We conversed with him in a 
friendly way. Some may ask how that could be, Harriman being a 
big capitalist, and I not the hindmost of Communists. Yet there we 
were, having a friendly talk. (Animation.) But that only confirms 
that there is a question that can bring everybody together workers, 
and peasants, and merchants, and capitalists. It concerns all people 
living on earth. It is the question of ensuring peace. For the sake 
of resolving this question we are in duty bound to seek and find a 
common language (Applause.) 

In conclusion, I should like to thank the Mayor of New York 
City for inviting us to take part in the exhibition that you are plan- 
ning to hold in 1964. For the moment I can only give you my per- 
sonal opinion (you have a poor idea of our democratic system, the 
Chairman of the Council of Ministers cannot in our country take 


such a decision before the government examines the question), but I 
think your invitation will be favorably received When you send us 
this proposal officially, we shall discuss it, and I expect that we shall 
consider it an honor to participate in the exhibition you are planning 
for 1964. (Applause.) 

I have come to the end of my speech. I thank you for your 
attention and for your patience. After all, I spoke extemporaneously, 
and being speakers yourselves you well know that when you speak 
without notes your speech turns out longer than you wanted. I have 
therefore wearied you somewhat Thank you again for your attention. 
Good-bye, ladies and gentlemen. (Stormy applause.) 



Members of the Economic Club of New York gave a dinner in 
honor of N. S. Khrushchev, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the 
USSR, on the evening of September 17. 

In his introductory speech Herbert Woodman, President of the Club 
and President of the large Interchemical Corporation, pointed out that 
today everybody recognizes the historic significance of the exchange of 
visits between Khrushchev and Eisenhower. The Soviet people, the Club 
President declared, may be justly proud of their economic achievements. 
At the same time, Woodman praised the capitalist system in every way 
possible, claiming, for example, that the struggle against monopolies 
was, allegedly, under way in the USA. Henry Cabot Lodge, the Presi- 
dent's special representative, spoke in the same vein. 

After that the floor was given to N. S. Khrushchev. 



Before proceeding with the address which I prepared prior to 
coming to your club, I should like to say a few words on some of the 
points brought up here by the Chairman, Mr. Woodman, and by Mr. 

Mr. Woodman said that never in the history of your club has 
there been such a large number of people as today, wishing to attend 
a meeting with a guest Before our meeting began I jokingly told Mr. 
Woodman that in some parts of my country, where the people have 
never seen, say, a camel, large crowds assemble when a camel ap- 
pears. Everybody wants to take a look at it, and some even wish to 
pull its tail. (Laughter, applause.) 

Forgive me my joke, but I should like to draw something of a 
parallel. The flower of the capitalist world of New York, and not 


only of New York, is gathered here. And suddenly a Communist 
appears in such select company, a company to which you are accus- 
tomed. Understandably, the wish arises to take a look at him, and 
to pull him by the tail if he proves to have one. ( General hilarity, 
burst of applause.) 

I don't know if Mr. Marshall MacDuffie is present here. I saw 
him today at the luncheon given by the Mayor of New York. During 
the first years after the war, when I was Chairman of the Council 
of Ministers in the Ukraine, Mr. MacDuffie came to the Soviet Union 
as representative of UNRRA, the American war relief organization. 
I was on very good terms with him and with the late La Guardia, 
the former Mayor of New York and head of UNRRA. Marshall 
MacDuffie came to us again when I was already working in Moscow. 
In one of our conversations he told me then that it would be very 
useful if I were to visit America. I asked him why. MacDuffie replied 
that some Americans thought I had horns. If they were to see I had 
no horns, that would be a great achievement (Laughter, applause.) 

I did not make that up. Ask MacDuffie, he will confirm our 
conversation. I think that now all of you here can see for yourselves 
that I really have no horns. (Laughter, applause.) Having convinced, 
yourselves of this, the victory will be half won if you convince others. 
People will realize that Communists are human beings like everybody 
else. The only difference between us is the difference in our views 
on the political structure and social system of states. And we must 
achieve agreement on the point that each people must choose for 
itself what system to maintain. 

As far as I know, you do not let your competitors look into 
your account books. Don't look into our accounts, then, for we have 
our own communist system of bookkeeping. (Animation.) Let's better 
live in peace. There are cases with you too, aren't there though they 
may be rare when competing corporations come to an agreement 
not to attack each other. Why then, to use your language, should not 
we, representatives of the communist corporation, and you, repre- 
sentatives of the capitalist corporation, agree on peaceful coexistence? 
Let each abide by his own views. (Prolonged applause.) 

I know that you like capitalism, and I don't want to dissuade 
you. I would simply do no more than humiliate myself if I were to 
take advantage of the hospitality of the biggest capitalists and begin 
moralizing to you about the superiority of communism. That would 
be a senseless thing to do before this audience. Let history be the 
judge! (Prolonged applause.) 


Leaving the session hall of the United Nations General Assembly 
after delivering the speech on general and complete disarmament. 

Why then did Mr. Lodge so zealously defend capitalism here? 
He did it so zealously, and that is only natural. If he did not defend 
capitalism so fervently, he would not hold such an important post 
in your country. (Laughter, applause.) The only question I have is 
what made Mr. Lodge plead the benefits of capitalism with such 
ardor today? Is it possible that he wished to talk me into adopting 
the capitalist faith? (Laughter.) Or perhaps, Mr. Lodge is afraid 
that if a Bolshevik addresses capitalists he will convert them and 
they will espouse the communist faith? I want to reassure you: 
I have no such intentions I know with whom I am dealing. (Laugh- 
ter, prolonged applause.) 

If Mr. Harriman will allow me, I shall tell you about our ex- 
change of jokes in a conversation we had in Moscow. I said in jest 
that Mr. Harriman was "jobless" after having been ousted by Rocke- 
feller from the post of governor of your state (animation), and that 
now he was at loose ends. Whereupon Comrade Mikoyan observed 


that a job for him could be found in the Soviet Union (laughter, 
applause), and I said: "If you like, I offer you the position of eco- 
nomic adviser to the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the 
USSR, with a good salary and a good country house." (Laughter, 
applause.) You, of course, realize that this was said in jest 

That is my reply to Mr, Lodge. 

I cannot grasp why he tried to convince me that you are busi- 
nessmen. I know it myself. If you were not managing important 
affairs you would not be occupying such high positions and would 
not be here today. 

I am accompanied by Comrade Yelyutin, the Minister of Special 
Secondary and Higher Education. He will confirm that we are train- 
ing many specialists. But if any of you wanted to share in building 
communism in our country, we would take his measure and find him 
a suitable job; the greater the benefit his work would bring, the more 
he would be paid for it (Laughter, applause.) We know how to value 
people, and the greater the benefit their work yields, the higher the 
pay for their labor. Such is the principle of socialism. 

You will excuse me for this digression. I only wanted to explain 
to Mr. Lodge that there was no cause for him to worry about his 
capitalists. So far as I can see, none of them will become Communists. 
And do not worry about me, either. I shall remain a Communist and 
shall not join any of your corporations. (Laughter, applause.) As 
people say, we shall come out even. (Applause.) 

Ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to meet busi- 
nessmen in the Economic Club of New York. My visit to the United 
States gives me the opportunity of getting a better knowledge of the 
life of your great country and of establishing personal contacts with 
your people, with all sections of it, including you gentlemen of the 
business world. 

I think that you too would find it interesting to make a closer 
acquaintance with us Soviet people representing the socialist system, 
and, so to say, to get first-hand information on how we live, how we 
run our household and how we build our economy. 

I know that businessmen are wont to talk without diplomatic 
niceties, with utter frankness. That is why I take the liberty of telling 
you in all frankness what may not perhaps be to the liking of some 
of you, but would yet be good for you. 

Some people blinded, to put it mildly, by their dislike of 
socialism and communism dream in their sleep, as the saying goes, 
of the ruin of the countries that have taken that path of development. 


i his dreams a person usually sees his cherished desires, and all too 
[ten the awakening brings him disappointment: He opens his eyes 
ad finds the same faces and the same environment that surrounded 
im when he plunged into his vain dream. 

Some people frequently dream that socialist Russia is the same 
s it was before the Revolution. But let's compare the rates at which 
le Soviet Union has been developing since we overthrew the old, 
jtten system, and the rates of development in the United States 
uring the same period. Compared with the 1913 level, output in the 
oviet Union has increased 36-fold, and only fourfold in your country. 
Thy does pur economy and culture develop more rapidly than 
ours? I am not imposing my ideology upon you, though I do not 
onceal my allegiance to the Communist Party and my political 
lews they are known to you. But the figures show convincingly 
bat the source of our rapidly growing strength is the socialist revo- 
ation, which enabled our country to take a road of development 
long which the locomotive of Soviet economy is racing at an ever 
cicreasing speed. Old Russia could never have even dreamed of such 
L pace. 

Possibly you disagree with me. But can you explain, then, what 
niracles brought those results about? What miracles, I ask you? 

In old Russia 76 of every 100 people over nine years of age 
vere illiterate. Nearly 80 per cent of the children and teenagers had 
10 opportunity of going to school, whereas today all our children go 
o school and there are practically no illiterate people in the country. 
We now have 40 times more specialists with a special secondary or 
ugher education than in pre-Revolutionary Russia, and our higher 
schools train almost three times as many engineers as American 
iniversities and colleges. Last year, for example, we trained 94,000 
engineers, while you trained 35,000. 

We have now worked out and begun a titanic seven-year plan 
>f economic development. I shall name just one figure to give you 
m idea of its scale: Our capital investments alone will amount to 
approximately 750 billion dollars in these seven years. Fulfillment 
Df this plan will bring us close to the level of economic development 
in the United States. 

Where do we get the funds for all this? Where do we get the 
accumulations? All this can only be explained by the advantages 
of the socialist system, for, as we know, miracles don't happen. 

Some people may, as before, doubt the feasibility of our plans. 
But that is ostrich policy; when an ostrich sees that its rival is over- 


taking it, it is said to hide its head in the sand Our development will 
not cease if you close your eyes to reality. 

Already I can disappoint the people who are playing ostrich. 
Do you happen to know how we are fulfilling the first year of the 
seven-year plan? 

Our plan for 1959 envisaged a 7.7 per-cent rise in industrial 
output Actually, we have increased output by 12 per cent in the 
first eight months of this year. There is reason to believe that we will 
produce more than 10 billion dollars worth over and above this year's 
plan. This means that, far from planning any impossible rates of 
economic development, we have, on the contrary, provided favorable 
conditions for industry, so as not to overtax the economy, and to 
receive additional accumulations through overfulfillment of the plan 
and to make the work of our enterprises more rhythmical. Conse- 
quently, we shall be able to overtake the USA in economic devel- 
opment, first in volume and then per head of population, more 
rapidly than projected in our plans. 

Before my departure, Comrade Kosygin, Chairman of the State 
Planning Committee, reported to me on the plan prepared by the 
committee for 1960, which has, in the main, been worked out in 
detail. True, it is still a tentative plan, but it has already been 
coordinated with all the Union Republics, and is therefore close to 
the form in which it will be approved. It will probably be approved 
soon after my return from America, at the close of October or early 
in November. The figures of this plan are not without interest For 
example, in 1960 we shall be able to produce two million more 
metric tons rolled stock than initially projected for the second year 
of the seven-year plaa With regard to oil, we are planning to increase 
output by more than 14 million metric tons in 1960 alone. This, too, 
is not bad for our economy. 

Excellent prospects are opening up for our gas industry. For the 
time being, America ranks first in the world for output and known 
reserves of gas, but in recent years we have been making increasing 
use of natural gas. Our geologists have discovered such huge gas 
deposits as will suffice for decades to come. This enables us to expand 
the extraction and consumption of gas still more and to surpass you 
in this respect as well 

These, gentlemen, are only a few words about our potentials. 
We have everything we need Our people are solidly behind their 
government, full of enthusiasm. They strive to do their duty to the 


best of their ability and thereby strengthen their socialist system still 

Possibly some people thought I would come to the United States 
to solicit for the development of Soviet-American trade, without 
which, it is alleged, the seven-year plan cannot be fulfilled. I want 
to say in all frankness that I have not come here to beg. We have 
always, ever since the inception of the Soviet state, urged the devel- 
opment of international trade. And we are by no means raising this 
question today because lack of such trade will prejudice the fulfill- 
ment of the seven-year plan. Whoever thinks so is making a big 

We attach considerable importance to the development of inter- 
national trade, acting upon the same rule as many people in your 
country, too, if we are to believe the motto reproduced on a postage 
stamp recently issued in the United States: "World peace through 
world trade." 

We agree with this approach. True, when I said approximately 
something of the kind some time ago, indicating that trade is impor- 
tant as a means of relaxing international tension, I was criticized by 
some people in America. Your newspapers wrote at that time that 
Khrushchev spoke of trade only because for him trade is no more 
than politics. But if we are really to speak about who has turned 
trade into a political weapon, it is an American institution you all 
know that invented a special list of embargoes, which you, business- 
men, are compelled to observe when trading with the Soviet Union. 
Let's not argue, however. History will establish who associated trade 
with politics, and in what way. 

I want to emphasize that the Soviet Government has always 
advocated, and continues to advocate, equitable, mutually beneficial 
international trade without any discrimination whatsoeverthe trade 
spoken of by Benjamin Franklin, whose words "Commerce among 
nations should be fair and equitable" are engraved above the front 
entrance of the U.S. Department of Commerce. 

The establishment of all sorts of embargo lists in trade is some- 
thing we oppose and shall always oppose as unreasonable practice. 
If you do not wish to trade in so-called strategic, or any other goods, 
you don't have to. That is your affair. But do not introduce discrim- 
ination against any country or group of countries. This practice 
disrupts normal international trade and leads to political complica- 
tions. Indeed, history tells us that governments resort to such restric- 
tions only when they contemplate a military campaign against the 


country subjected to discrimination. Let us then clear the path to 
normal trade relations between all countries, irrespective of their 
social systems. 

We are trading on a basis of equality with many countries. 
Suffice it to say that last year the volume of Soviet foreign trade 
exceeded the 1938 level sevenfold and amounted to 34,589 billion 

Our trade relations with Britain are shaping up quite well 
Trade is expanding with businessmen in West Germany. It should 
be noted that the Government of West Germany also has a correct 
understanding of the interests of its country in this matter and 
cooperates in the development of trade contacts rather than obstructs 
them. We welcome this. Good economic relations are shaping up 
between us and Italy. Relations with France are not bad. Why then 
must America stand apart? However, that is up to you. The question 
of trade is a question of profit If you find it unprofitable to buy from 
us, or to sell us some goods, do as you think best 

But bear one thing in mind. It sometimes happens that too 
choosy a girl lets time slip, stays a spinster too long, and is left 
empty-handed. (Laughter.) Such maidenly indecision is doubly out 
of place in business, where the rule "First come, first served" per- 
petuated in an English proverb, operates more than anywhere else. 
We too have a rather good saying to that effect: "He who comes late 
gets a picked bone." (Animation.) 

In justifying the stagnation that has persisted in Soviet-American 
economic relations for almost 10 years, some public leaders poli- 
ticians rather than businessmen allege that this situation is normal 
and even of advantage to the Western world. They seriously maintain 
that by refusing to trade with us the United States retards the eco- 
nomic development of the Soviet Union and weakens its defensive 

However, I think there are few people in this hall who believe 
this. You all know through the press about the Soviet sputniks and 
rockets, about the growth of our economy, which has never been so 
rapid as in the past ten years. If any of you still have even the 
slightest doubts on that score, you are welcome to come to the Soviet 
Union and see for yourselves, as your colleague, Mr. Harriman, has 
done recently. 

By the way, we spoke with Mr. Harriman on a number of 
questions, including the question of trade. I told him, and I can now 
repeat it, that the law banning trade with the USSR, which was 


passed in the United States as a repressive measure against the Soviet 
Union, has led to results directly opposite to what its authors 

We have even derived a certain benefit from the trade policy* 
which the United States pursued with regard to the Soviet Union. 
We have had to develop production of machines that we did not 
have before and intended to buy from you, and now are not depend- 
ent on anyone in this respect Thus, the artificial dwarfing of trade 
with the Soviet Union has strengthened rather than weakened us, 

Look at the tremendous successes achieved in our economy in 
those ten years, look how our technology and science have developed! 
We discovered the secret of using the energy of hydrogen before you 
did. We were ahead of you in developing the intercontinental ballistic 
rocket, which, in fact, you do not have to this day. Yet, when you 
come to think of it, the intercontinental ballistic rocket is truly a 
condensation of creative human thinking. 

So, what sense is there in your restrictions? Continuation by 
the United States of the policy of trade discrimination against the 
Soviet Union is simply a piece of senseless obstinacy. (Animation.) 
From time immemorial lively trade has been considered a good 
omen in relations between countries. In the situation obtaining today 
international trade acquires still greater importance as a kind of 
barometer of the relations between countries. Then may the pointer 
of this barometer move at least towards "Variable," and once it 
passes that line we are sure that given the effort of both sides it 
will soon point to "Fair weather." 

You are all well informed of the fact that we are offering you 
economic competition. Some describe this as our challenge to the 
United States. But speaking of challenges, one might say perhaps 
and it would even be more precise that it was the United States 
that first challenged the whole world. The USA developed its econ- 
omy to a higher level than in any other country. For a long time 
nobody ventured to dispute your supremacy. But the time has now 
come when a country has appeared which accepts your challenge, 
which takes into account the level of development in the United 
States, and in turn challenges you. You may rest assured that the 
Soviet Union will hold its own in this economic competition: It will 
overtake you and leave you behind. 

But what harm is there in that? No matter who wins in this 
competition you or we both the Soviet Union and the United 


States will gain by it, because our peoples will have peace and live 
still better than today. ^ 

Incidentally, competition as we Soviet people understand and 
practice it by no means excludes cooperation and mutual assistance, 
and we are ready to extend this rule to the United States, if you will 
agree to it After all, haven't we cooperated with you in the past? 
Some thirty years ago, when our country started building a large- 
scale industry, good economic contacts were established with leading 
U.S. firms. Ford helped us build the motor works in Gorky. Cooper, 
a prominent American specialist, acted as consultant during the 
building of the hydropower station on the Dnieper, which in those 
days was the biggest in the world. Your engineers helped us build 
the tractor works in Stalingrad and Kharkov. Americans, along with 
the British, were consultants during the construction of the Moscow 
subway. We were grateful to your specialists for their cooperation, 
and many of them returned home with Soviet decorations and letters 
of thanks, to say nothing of material remuneration. (Animation.) 

What is there to prevent us from renewing and developing 
economic cooperation at. the present, qualitatively new stage, when 
it is not only we who could learn from you, but you, too, who could 
learn a lot from our engineers, designers and scientists? Such coop- 
eration would most certainly be of mutual benefit. 

Your and our economic successes will be hailed by the whole 
world, which expects our two Great Powers to help the peoples who 
are centuries behind in their economic development to get on their 
feet more quickly, I shall say nothing now about whose fault that is 
you know it perfectly well. Let us better decide on a just and 
humane way of helping these countries out of the plight in which 
they find themselves. 

The position of the Soviet Union in this matter is clear. Although 
our country has not made a single ruble through the exploitation of 
the natural resources and labor of other countries, we are ready to 
continue assisting the countries of Asia and Africa that have won 
their independence. Yet it would be only fair if the countries that 
utilize the natural resources and the labor of other countries loosened 
their purse-strings more. 

Gentlemen, I read the allegation in your newspapers that the 
policy of peaceful coexistence which we are offering to you actually 
means the establishment .of a "divided world." Nothing could be 
farther from a correct understanding of the ideas of peaceful co- 
existence than such an interpretatioa In reality, we want to secure 


exactly the opposite: Peaceful coexistence and competition imply 
increasing economic and cultural intercourse between nations. And, 
conversely, rejection of peaceful coexistence and competition signifies 
the disruption of all intercourse between countries and the further 
fanning of the cold war. 

Every person who does not want deliberately to shut his eyes 
to hard facts will recognize that the only sensible way for inter- 
national relations to develop in our time is that of settling outstanding 
international issues by negotiation. Our visit to the United States 
and President Eisenhower's coming visit to the Soviet Union will, 
we hope, allow us to hold a frank exchange of views on existing 
controversial issues and facilitate agreement between us. (Applause.) 
To live in peace as good neighbors or to drift to another war 
such is the choice that now confronts the Soviet Union, the United 
States of America and the whole world. There is no third choice if, 
of course, we discount the fantastic possibility of either one of us 
wanting to move from the earth to another planet I do not believe 
in the latter possibility: The Soviet people are doing quite well on 
earth, and. you, too, I should imagine, do not intend to book passage 
for the moon. My information is that it is not very cosy there at the 

Big possibilities are concentrated in your hands, gentlemen. You 
are influential people. That is why, in addressing you today, I should 
like to voice the hope that U.S. businessmen will use their influence 
in the right direction and support peaceful coexistence and compe- 
tition between us, just as some prominent representatives of your 
economy are already doing. I have respect for Mr. Cyrus Eaton, for 
example, who is showing courage and foresight 

True, they say that there are people who do not like the fact 
that certain American businessmen are supporting the idea of peace- 
ful coexistence. These businessmen are even criticized for it in the 
press. But, as the saying goes, "He who wants to have eggs must put 
up with the cackle of hens." (Laughter.) 

Naturally, gentlemen of the business world, I am not urging 
you to adopt our world outlook I think that you, too, do not expect 
to win me over to the capitalist faith we are obviously past that 
age. You evidently believe in the victory of your system, and I am 
confident in the victory of socialism. 

I can see some of you smiling a person who is convinced that 
his own views are right is usually ironical in his attitude to the other 
party, who is just as firm in his views. But although I lay no claim 


to being a prophet, I can say that some people will apparently have 
to swallow a bitter pill when they realize that they have incorrectly 
evaluated the situation and erred in their calculations. If -they are 
men of action and intelligence, then judging by the experience of 
the socialist countries, they will be given the opportunity of applying 
their knowledge, their energy and their abilities when the American 
people go over to a new social system. 

You will forgive me this joke; I had no intention of offending 
and, still less, of insulting anybody. I just wanted to express my 
thoughts about the future as I see it 

In conclusion, allow me to wish that each of you make his 
contribution to improving the relations between our countries and 
bettering the international situation. Thank you. (Prolonged 

After N. S. Khrushchev finished his speech, he answered a number of 


The first to take the floor was the Editor of the American maga- 
zine Look. His question was considered by the speaker to be of an 
obviously provocative nature and meant to divert the attention of 
the gathering from the basic points put forward by the head of the 
Soviet Government in his speech, which was received with great 

Delegates to the United Nations General Assembly greeting Khrushchev. 

interest by the numerous guests assembled in the largest room of the 
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel The questioner did not seem to understand 
how the thesis of peaceful coexistence of capitalist and socialist 
countries could be reconciled with the propositions of scientific com- 
munism about the inevitable triumph of communist ideas throughout 
the world. 

KHRUSHCHEV: The fact that you ask such questions and the 
fact that some gentlemen are laughing before hearing my reply show 
how little they know of the substance of the matter. People who are 
well-grounded in history know that when human society was com- 
pleting the transition from feudalism to capitalism there also was 
a struggle between the old and the new. Like other nations, the 
American people also fought for a transition to the more perfect 
social form of that day. You fought against slavery and feudalism, 
you fought for progress, against the old system which impeded the 
development of the productive forces, and in the end you were 
victorious. But at the time the American people established a repub- 
lic, czarist Russia was still a semi-feudal country where serfdom 
prevailed. Your economy progressed rapidly, while the economy of 
czarist Russia lagged considerably behind the American economy in 
its development. And that was only natural, because the social sys- 
tem which triumphed in your country was more progressive than the 
system that preceded it. Nevertheless, republican America coexisted 
peacefully with monarchist Russia. They did not wage war against 
each other. 

Why is it, then, that at this time, when mankind has come to a 
new stage of development, you refuse to accept the idea of the peace- 
ful coexistence of v capitalist and socialist countries? This, of course, 
does not alter the substance of the matter. 

REMARK FROM THE BALCONY: That does not answer the 

KHRUSHCHEV: You may not like the substance of the matter, 
but such is the history of human development I might only add what 
folk say in such cases: If a girl who has had a baby still wants to 
be regarded as a girl, and even goes to court to be recognized as 
such, this does not alter the case. Even if the court were to grant her 
that recognition, she would never again be a girl all the sama 
(General laughter, applause.) 

I am told that you are the editor of a magazine. That is evi- 
dently so. What do you want? Do you want me to give you a guar- 
antee that the American people will live eternally in the conditions 


of a capitalist society? Do "you want a prescription for preserving 
capitalism from extinction? I am no doctor and cannot offer prescrip- 
tions of that kind. The question of what system you will have in your 
country depends neither on me, nor on you. It depends on the Amer- 
ican workers, on the American people. They will decide what system 
to choose. Do not, therefore, expect to get any sedatives, Mr. Editor, 
I cannot give them to you. No one can halt the inexorable march of 
history! I just want to emphasize that we are for noninterference in 
the internal affairs of other countries. Hence, the situation in your 
country is your own responsibility! (Prolonged applause.) 

M. KELLY (researcher and consultant in industrial management): 
I am interested in the Soviet Government's attitude toward cultural 
and scientific exchange between the United States of America and 
the Soviet Union. Could you say something about that? 

KHRUSHCHEV: I can tell you that I have discussed the question 
yesterday with the Senators on the Foreign Relations Committee. 
The Soviet Union is persistently advocating broader cultural and 
scientific exchange with all countries, including, of course, the United 
States of America. I told the Senators that we were surprised the 
State Department was not meeting us halfway and was contemplat- 
ing to curtail somewhat the exchange in all fields the exchange of 
cultural, scientific, student and other delegations. So you will have 
to take this question to the State Department and ask them why 
they have adopted the line of curtailing, rather than extending, our 
cultural relations. (Animation f applause.) 

HERBERT WOODMAN: Thank you, Mr. Khrushchev, for your 
reply. The State Department is represented here, and we hope to 
hear something from them on the question. (Animation^ applause.) 

KELLY: Allow me to ask one more question. Does the Soviet 
Union intend to extend publication of data on scientific research done 
by Soviet scientists? Lately we have had frequent contact with Soviet 
scientists and admire their achievements. Is there any intention of 
publishing more of their papers? It would promote international 
cooperation among scientists. 

KHRUSHCHEV: I like this question you can feel a practical 
approach in it. Just what papers do you mean? It is hard for me to 
reply, because you have put the question in general form. In the 
Soviet Union we strive to publish all works of great scientific value, 
with the exception of classified matter related to defense. Other 
countries, including the United States, do the same thing. We are 


well aware that a country which makes a secret of all scientific re- 
search thereby retards the development of its own science. We have 
no wish to harm ourselves. Our socialist society is free of competition 
and we do not have to fear that the publication of information by 
one research institute will cause damage to another, as is often the 
case in relations between capitalist firms carrying on research. That 
is our advantage over the capitalist system. 

KELLY: You are right, my question was too general Allow me, 
therefore, to ask you to speed up as much as possible the publication 
of information about research done by Soviet scientists under the 
International Geophysical Year. 

KHRUSHCHEV: Thank you for specifying. When I return home 
I shall look into the matter and try to speed up the publication of 
the materials you speak of. I can see no secrets in the matter. 
(Stormy applause.) 

WOODMAN: Why don't our broadcasts to the Soviet Union reach 
the listener? (The representative of the tobacco firm went on to urge 
that all sorts of publications from capitalist countries be distributed 
in the Soviet Union and that reception of broadcasts from the Voice 
of America and similar radio stations be organized on as wide a scale 
as possible in the Soviet Union.) 

KHRUSHCHEV: Gentlemen, please understand me correctly. I 
have come here at the invitation of the President In our very first 
talks with Mr. Eisenhower we decided not to touch upon questions 
related to the internal competence of our two countries. 

(Cries of an obviously provocative nature are again heard from 
the balcony. But some people below as well join the voices from 
the balcony.) 

KHRUSHCHEV: Gentlemen, since you have invited me, I would 
ask you to hear me out attentively. If you do not want to, I can 
stop talking. I did not come to the USA to beg. I represent the great 
Soviet state, a great people who have made the Great October 
Revolution. And no sallies, gentlemen, can drown out what has been 
achieved and done by our great people, and what it is planning to 
do. (Noise in the hall, rebuking the authors of the remarks and cries.) 
I will reply to all your questions if you stop trying to shout me down. 

The question of how and what our people should hear is the 
affair of our people, the affair of the Soviet people. These questions 
are decided, and will always be decided, by the Soviet people them- 
selves and their government, without foreign interference. 


You are displeased that the Soviet people refuse to listen to 
the anti-Soviet broadcasts of the Voice of America, but you yourselves 
"jam" some good American voices. We Soviet people, and many 
other people as well, like the wonderful voice of America, for exam- 
ple, with which Paul Robeson sings. Yet you must know, of course, 
that for many years your government did not let him go to countries 
that invited him to sing. Why did you jam that voice? Paul Robeson 
has a splendid voice and we like to listen to him. But we have no 
desire to listen to the false voice with which you want to talk to us. 
It would be different if your voice were friendly, wholesome. We will 
not jam such a voice. We are ready to listen to it. (Cries of approval.) 

WOODMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman of the Council of Minis- 
ters of the USSR, for your speech, for patiently listening to all our 
questions in spite of being very tired,- and for answering them so 
comprehensively. Tell us, if we show that it will be better in our 
country than in yours, will you go on fighting capitalism just the 
same? I should like to assure you that the members of our Economic 
Club are willing to compete with the Soviet people in peaceful 

(Amid cries of approval from the entire audience, Nikita 
Sergeyevich Khrushchev shakes hands warmly with Mr. Woodman. 
Then he returns to the rostrum.) 

KHRUSHCHEV: Gentlemen, everybody will be winners in the 
peaceful competition that we are offering you. If the cause, the 
system which you represent, gives people more blessings and creates 
better living conditions for them, if it gives more scope to the produc- 
tive forces of society than socialism, I shall come to you and ask you 
for a job. (General laughter, applause.) But at the moment, gentle- 
men, do not offer me "causes," because the cause I serve, the great 
cause of communism, is the best and the noblest cause of all! Why 
then should I change it for something else! (Animation.) To speak 
seriously, I have come to your country to establish friendship with 
the American people. The Soviet people want this friendship, they 
desire greater cooperation with the American people. They want a 
strengthening of peace throughout the world. 

Thank you. (Prolonged applause.) 

N. S. Khrushchev's speech and his replies to questions were received by 
those present with great attention and on numerous occasions were interrupted 
by applause. They made a great impression on the representatives of American 
business circles. 


On September 18, Mr. Herbert Woodman addressed the following letter to 
N. S. Khrushchev: 

Dear Chairman Khrushchev: 

While you are still in New York, I want to express to you the 
great appreciation of the Economic Club of New York for your 
address at the meeting last night It was an epoch-making event in 
the history of the club. I also want to express my great personal 
pleasure in having had the opportunity to meet and talk with you. 

I sincerely hope that there was no real misunderstanding as a 
result of the apparent discourtesy on the part of a few members of 
the audience during the question period In so large a group it seems 
almost inevitable that there will be a few people who are forgetful 
of their manners. I feel sure you realized how very few they were. 
The membership of the club and the vast preponderance of guests 
were greatly interested in what. you had to say and were genuinely 
appreciative of your willingness to answer questions after such an 
extremely long and strenuous day. 

This morning I have received many comments about the meet- 
ing. They have, without exception, been to the effect that it was an 
extremely interesting and rewarding experience. Once again, I thank 
you both personally and on behalf of all who were present 


Dear Mr. Woodman: 

I thank you heartily for your letter in which you speak so 
highly of my speech in the Economic Club of New York. 

Like you, I am well aware that the individuals who tried to 
cast a shadow on our meeting with their unfriendly cries do not 
represent the opinion of either the businessmen who gathered at the 
Economic Club or the American people, and for that reason failed 
to receive any support at such a distinguished and responsible meet- 
ing. Just like you, I pay no attention whatsoever to them. 

We have had a good businesslike meeting and in many respects 
it has helped to improve mutual understanding and strengthen 
friendly relations between the United States of America and the 

Soviet Union. 

With sincere respect, 

September 19, 1959 




N. S. Khrushchev addressed the session of the UN General Assem- 
bly on September 18. Below we publish the full text of the Declaration 
of the Soviet Government he submitted to the General Assembly of the 
United Nations. 


My visit to the United States at the invitation of the President, 
Mr. Dwight Eisenhower, has coincided with the beginning of the 
session of the United Nations General Assembly. Permit me, first of 
all, to express my sincere thanks to the Assembly delegates and to 
the Secretary General for this opportunity to speak from the lofty 
tribune of the United Nations. I appreciate this honor all the more 
since the Soviet Union is today submitting to the General Assembly 
highly important proposals on the most burning issue disturbing the 
peoples the disarmament problem. 

History knows no other international organization in which the 
peoples reposed such hopes as in the United Nations. Born in the 
grim days when the rumble of the last battles of the Second World 
War had not yet died away and when the ruins of devastated towns 
and villages were still smoking, the United Nations, expressing the 
thoughts and aspirations of millions upon millions of tormented 
people, proclaimed its main purpose to be that of delivering suc- 
ceeding generations from the scourge of war. Today the United 
Nations embraces more than eighty states. Its ranks have been 
joined by many of the states which, in the past war, were in the 
camp hostile to those who had laid the foundations of this organ- 

More than fourteen years have elapsed since this international 
forum was created. Yet the purpose for which the organization was 
founded still has not been achieved. The peoples still live in constant 
anxiety about peace, about their future. And how can they not feel 
this anxiety when, now in one part of the world, now in another, 
military conflicts flare up and human blood is shed? The clouds of 
a new war danger, at times thickening into storm clouds, loom over 
a world which has not yet forgotten the horrors of the Second World 

The tension in international relations cannot continue forever: 
Either it will reach a point where there can be only one outcome 
war or, by their joint efforts, the states will succeed in ending this 
tension in time. The peoples expect the United Nations to redouble 


N. S. Khrushchev speaking at the 14th session of the UN General Assembly on Septem 

its efforts toward creating an atmosphere of trust and mutual under- 
standing among states and consolidating world peace. 

In international affairs success in solving controversial problems 
is possible provided the states concentrate on what brings states 
closer together rather than on what divides the present-day world. 
No social or political dissimilarities, no differences in ideology or 
religious beliefs must prevent the member-states of the United Na- 
tions from reaching agreement on the main thing: that the principles 
of peaceful coexistence and friendly cooperation be sacredly and 
unswervingly observed by all states. If, on the other hand, differ- 
ences and social dissimilarities are pushed to the fore, it is bound to 
doom to failure all our efforts to preserve peace. In the twentieth 
century one cannot undertake crusades to wipe out unbelievers with 
fire and sword, as the fanatics of the Middle Ages did, without run- 
ning the risk of confronting humanity with the greatest calamity in 
its history. 

The United Nations is itself an embodiment of the idea of 
peaceful cooperation between states with different social and politi- 
cal systems. Indeed, see how many states there are belonging to 
different social systems, what a multitude of races and nationalities, 
what a diversity of philosophies and cultures are represented in this 

But since the states differ in their evaluation of controversial 
issues, since there are divergent views on the causes of the present 
international tension, we have to be prepared for the elimination of 


disagreements requiring persistent effort, patience and statesmanship 
on the part of the governments. The time has come for the efforts of 
the United Nations in strengthening peace to be supplemented by the 
efforts of the heads of government of all states, by the efforts of the 
broad masses of the people who stand for peace and international 
security. Everything indicates that the time has come to open a 
period of international negotiations, conferences and meetings of 
statesmen in order that the pressing international problems may one 
after another be solved. 

For the principles of peaceful coexistence to become undividedly 
established in the relations between states, it is necessary, in our 
opinion, to put an end to the cold war. The peoples cannot allow the 
unnatural states of cold war to continue any longer, as they cannot 
allow epidemics of plague and cholera. 

What does ending the cold war mean and what must be done 
to accomplish it? 

First of all, an end must be put to calls for war. There is no 
getting away from the fact that belligerent speeches also continue 
to be made by some short-sighted statesmen. Is it not time to put 
a stop to saber-rattling and threats against other states? 

The cold war is doubly dangerous because it is going on in the 
conditions of an unbridled armaments race, which, growing like an 
avalanche, is increasing suspicion and distrust among states. 

Nor must it be forgotten that the cold war began and is pro- 
ceeding at a time when the vestiges of the Second World War have 
not yet been eliminated by any means, when a peace treaty with 
Germany has not yet been concluded and an occupation regime is 
still maintained in the heart of Germany, in Berlin, on the territory 
of its Western sectors. The elimination of this source of tension in 
the center of Europe, in the potentially most dangerous area of the 
globe, where large armed forces of the opposing military alignments 
are stationed in close contiguity, would furnish the key to normaliz- 
ing the climate in the world. We appeal to the Governments of the 
United States, Britain and France to exert every effort to reach 
agreement on real steps to achieve this. 

Who can deny that in ending the cold war and normalizing the 
international climate great importance is attached to developing, in 
every way, contacts between the peoples? We are for extending the 
practice of mutual visits by statesmen, and also by representatives 
of political, business and public circles, for developing international 
economic, cultural, scientific and technical cooperation. 


I should like to say that the United Nations will fulfill its noble 
mission far more successfully if it is able to rid itself of the elements 
of cold war which often handicap its activities. Isn't it the cold war 
that has produced the intolerable situation wherein the Chinese 
People's Republic, one of the biggest powers in the world, has for 
many years now been denied its lawful rights in the United Nations? 

It is inconceivable, after all, that anyone could seriously think 
that a dependable and lasting solution of major world problems can 
be achieved without the participation of the great People's China, 
now approaching its glorious tenth anniversary. 

Permit me to voice the following thoughts on this subject in all 
frankness. Everyone knows that when a person dies he is eventually 
buried. No matter how dear the deceased, no matter how it hurts to 
part with him, life compels everyone to face up to the realities: A 
coffin or a tomb is made for the dead, man and he is taken out of 
the house of the living. So it was in ancient times and so it is today. 
Why then must China be represented in the United Nations by the 
corpse of reactionary China, that is, by the Chiang Kai-shek clique? 
We consider that it is high time for the United Nations to deal with 
a corpse as all peoples do, that is, carry it out, so that a real repre- 
sentative of the Chinese people may take his rightful seat in the 
united Nations. (Applause.) 

After all, China is not Taiwan. Taiwan is only a small island, a 
province, that is, a small part of a great state, China. China is the 
Chinese People's Republic, which has for ten years now been devel- 
oping rapidly, which has a stable government recognized by the 
entire Chinese people, and legislative bodies elected by the entire 
people of China. China is a great state whose capital is Peking. Sooner 
or later Taiwan, as an inalienable part of the sovereign Chinese state, 
will be united with the whole of People's China, that is, the authority 
of the Government of the People's Republic of China will be ex- 
tended to this island. And the sooner it is done, the better. 

The restoration of the lawful rights of People's China will not 
only enormously enhance the prestige and authority of the United 
Nations, but will also be a notable contribution to improving the 
international climate generally. 

I should like to hope that the United Nations will find the 
strength to get rid of all cold war accretions and become a really 
universal organ of international cooperation working effectively for 
world peace. 


It may, however, be asked: Abolition of the cold war, consoli- 
dation of peace, and the peaceful coexistence of states is, of course, 
a supremely noble and attractive goal, but is it attainable, is it real- 
istic? Can we at this time, in present-day conditions, place the rela- 
tions between states on a new basis? 

From this rostrum I emphatically declare that the Soviet Gov- 
ernment considers the achievement of this goal not only urgent but 
also entirely realistic. The Soviet Union is convinced that the neces- 
sary conditions are now in evidence for a radical change for the better 
in international relations, for the complete abolition of the cold war 
in the interests of the whole of humanity. 

Let us consider, if only briefly, the most important of the events 
of recent months bearing on the problem of reducing international 

The convocation in May 1959 of the Geneva foreign ministers' 
conference, in which plenipotentiary representatives of the two Ger- 
man states for the first time took part, was in itself the expression 
of a new spirit in international relations, the spirit of realism and 
mutual understanding. The results achieved in Geneva are, of course, 
not yet such as could be considered sufficient for the practical solu- 
tion of pressing international problems. But it is already something 
that the detailed and frank discussion of the problems on the Geneva 
conference agenda made it possible, as noted in the final communique 
of the conference, to bring the positions of the sides on a number of 
points closer together. In this way a fairly good foundation was laid 
for further negotiations which can lead to agreement on the questions 
that remain outstanding. 

It is especially heartening that important steps have been taken 
to develop Soviet-American relations. No one is likely to doubt that 
the evolution of the international situation as a whole depends in no 
small measure on how relations develop between the United States 
and the Soviet Union, the two strongest powers in the world. That is 
why even those first shoots of something new which have appeared 
in Soviet-American relations of late meet with the most heartfelt 
approval all over the world. The ice in Soviet-American relations has 
undoubtedly begun to break, and of this we are sincerely glad. 

Among the events making for improvement in Soviet-American 
relations, the exchange of visits between the heads of government 
of the USSR and the United States can prove a turning point We 
have had, and will continue to have, an exchange of opinions with 
the President of the United States on problems of Soviet-American 


relations and on pressing international problems, We believe that Mr. 
Eisenhower wishes to contribute to removing the tension in relations 
between states. 

At one of his news conferences the President of the United 
States expressed a readiness to negotiate realistically with the Soviet 
Union on a reasonable and mutually guaranteed plan for general 
disarmament or disarmament in the field of special types of weapons, 
to make a real beginning toward solving the problems of the divided 
Germany, and to help in otherwise reducing tension in the world. 
Permit me to express the hope that our exchange of views with 
President Eisenhower will be fruitful 

We belong to those who hope that the exchange of visits between 
the leading statesmen of the United States and the USSR and the 
forthcoming meetings and conversations will help to pave a straight 
way to the complete ending of the cold war, provided, of course, there 
is a mutual desire to achieve that That is how we regard our visit 
to the United States and the coming visit of President Eisenhower 
to the Soviet Union. 

Many other facts could also be adduced which exemplify the 
new favorable trends in world affairs. 

Signs that relations between states are becoming warmer are 
not, of course, a result of chance favorable circumstances. 

The world, we think, is really entering a new phase of inter- 
national relations. The grim years of the cold war cannot fail to 
leave a mark on everyone. The ordinary people and political leaders 
in many different countries have done much thinking and have 
learned much. Everywhere the forces actively supporting peace and 
friendly relations between the nations have grown immeasurably. 

It would, of course, be unjustified optimism to assert that the 
atmosphere of distrust and suspicion in the relations between states 
is already a thing of the past, that peace in the world is already 
secure, and that there is no need for further persistent efforts by aU 
the states. Unfortunately, that is as yet by no means the case. Circles 
which obstruct a relaxation of international tension and sow the 
seeds of new conflicts are still active and influential in many coun- 
tries. These people uphold the old, moribund state of affairs, they 
cling to the legacy of the cold wan 

But the course of events, especially of late, shows that attempts 
to hinder relaxation of international tension, to put spokes in the 
wheel, can only lead to the discomfiture of those who persist in such 
attempts, for the peoples will not support them. 


We live at a time when mankind is marching ahead with giant 
strides, and we are witnessing not only the rapid development of 
industry, science and engineering, but also rapid changes in the 
political appearance of large areas of the world. Once backward 
peoples are coming free of colonial dependence, and new independ- 
ent states are arising in place of former colonies and semi-colonies. 
Permit me to extend warm greetings from the bottom of my heart 
to the representatives of those states present in this hall. (Applause.) 

At the same time it should be admitted that not all the peoples 
who have a right to be represented in the United Nations have their 
representatives here as yet The Soviet Union, like all freedom- 
loving nations, warmly wishes success to the peoples who still live 
in colonial dependence but who are fighting resolutely for their 
national liberation from the colonial yoke. 

The last strongholds of the obsolete colonial system are crum- 
bling, and crumbling badly, and this is one of the salient factors of 
our time. Take a look at the map of Asia and Africa and you will 
see hundreds of millions of people who have freed themselves of 
centuries-old oppression by foreigners, of foreign exploitation. 

Coming generations will esteem highly the heroism of those 
who led the struggle for the independence of India and Indonesia, 
the United Arab Republic and Iraq, Ghana, Guinea and other states, 
just as the people of the United States today revere the memory of 
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who led the American 
people in their struggle for independence. 

J deem it necessary to say here, from the rostrum of the United 
Nations, that the Soviet Union has the sincerest sympathy and the 
profoundest understanding for all peoples who, on different conti- 
nents, are upholding their freedom and national independence. It is 
my opinion that this position of ours fully accords with the princi- 
ples of the United Nations Charter, which is predicated on recognition 
of the right of the peoples to a free and independent existence and 

Who but the United Nations should be the first to extend a 
helping hand to peoples liberating themselves, to ensure their in- 
alienable right to be masters of their own destiny and to shape their 
life without any pressure or encroachment from without? And is it 
not the duty of the United Nations to contribute to the utmost to 
the economic advancement of the new states rising from the ruins 
of the colonial system, to help them speedily build up their national 
economies? This can only be achieved by the provision of large-scale 


sconomic assistance without any political or other strings attached, 
^iid that is the position taken by the Soviet Union on the question of 
economic aid which we are rendering and intend to render in the 
uture to many countries. This position, we feel, fully accords with 
he principles of the United Nations Charter. 

The Soviet Union would also be prepared to join with other 
>owers in rendering economic assistance to the underdeveloped coun- 
ries, as they are called, by using part of the resources that would be 
nade available in the Soviet Union and other countries by the con- 
clusion of an international agreement on disarmament and reduction 
>f military budgets. We have already stated our readiness to assume 
iuch an undertaking, and I am empowered by my government to 
eaffirm it from the rostrum of the General Assembly. 

There is another highly important source which, in our opinion, 
should be drawn upon extensively to provide assistance to economi- 
cally underdeveloped countries. The peoples of many of these coun- 
ries have won political independence, but they are still cruelly 
sxploited by foreigners economically. Their oil and other natural 
vealth is plundered, it is taken out of the country for next to nothing, 
gelding huge profits to foreign exploiters. 

In common with the representatives of many other states, we 
consider that in the question of economic aid one cannot put on a 
par those who do not take part in the exploitation of former colonial 
:ountries, and never did, and those who continue without any scru- 
ples to squeeze wealth out of the underdeveloped countries. It would 
>e right and just for the foreign exploiters to return at least part of 
the riches they have amassed by exploiting the oppressed peoples, 
jo that these funds, returned in the form of aid to the underdevel- 
oped countries, be used for the development of their economy and 
:ulture, for raising the living standards of their peoples. 

The Soviet Union has been rendering and will continue to 
render genuine, disinterested assistance to the underdeveloped coun- 
tries. Rest assured of that 

What preposterous survivals in these days are the various arti- 
ficial obstacles to the full-blooded, all-round development of inter- 
national trade! The entire system of discrimination in trade has long 
deserved to be buried, and without any honors. 

As you know, the Soviet Union has consistently advocated 
maximum development of international trade on a basis of equality 
and mutual benefit It is our deep conviction that trade provides a 
good basis for developing peaceful cooperation among states, for 


strengthening mutual confidence among nations. We consider that 
this position accords completely with the United Nations Charter, 
which obligates all member states to develop friendly relations among 
nations on the basis of respect for the principle of equality and self- 
determination of the peoples. 

We, all of us, are faced with many outstanding international 
problems. Not all of them are equally important or urgent. Some of 
them concern the relations between individual countries, others affect 
the interests of the peoples of a number of countries and continents. 
But there is one problem whose solution is awaited with hope by 
the people of all countries, large and small, whatever their social 
system and way of life the problem of disarmament Whether man- 
kind heads toward war with its disastrous consequences or whether 
the cause of peace prevails depends largely on whether or not the 
correct solution is found to that problem. The peoples long for peace, 
they want to live without fear for their future, without fear of losing 
their loved ones in the flames of another war. 

For centuries the peoples have dreamed of getting rid of the 
destructive weapons of war. The demand for disarmament has been 
advanced and pressed by humanity's finest minds, the greatest public 
leaders and statesmen, the parties closest to the working people. But 
instead of disarmament the world has for many decades now been 
convulsed by the armaments fever. 

Who can honestly say that the arms race has helped to solve a 
single, even the simplest international problem? On the contrary, it 
only complicates and tangles the solution of all issues in dispute. 

Never before in the history of mankind has the armaments drive 
proceeded at such a pace and with such dangers as are involved 
today, in the age of the atom, electronics and the conquest of outer 

Only recently rapid-fire automatic weapons, tanks, long-range 
artillery and aerial bombs were regarded as the most terrible, the 
most powerful instruments of annihilation. But can they stand any 
comparison with the weapons available today? We have reached a 
stage where it would be difficult to devise a weapon more powerful 
than the hydrogen bomb, whose potential is practically unlimited. 
If all the instruments of destruction mankind has possessed in the 
past were put together, they would amount in power to only an 
insignificant fraction of what the two or three Great Powers possess- 
ing nuclear weapons have at their disposal today. 


I shall not be disclosing any great secret when I say that the 
explosion of one only one big hydrogen bomb releases a tremen- 
dous energy of destruction. Recently I read some remarks by the 
American nuclear physicist W. Davidson, stating that the explosion 
of one hydrogen bomb releases more energy than all the explosions 
effected by all countries in all the wars in the history of mankind. 
And, by all indications, he is right. Can one disregard the fact that 
the destructive power of the weapons of war has reached such colossal 
proportions? And can one forget that there is not a spot on the globe 
today that nuclear and rocket weapons cannot reach? 

It is hard to imagine the consequences for mankind of a war 
with the use of these monstrous instruments of destruction and 
annihilation. If it were allowed to break out, its toll would run not 
into millions, but into tens and even hundreds of millions of human 
lives. It would be a war that would know no distinction between 
front and rear, between combatants and children. Many large cities 
and industrial centers would be reduced to ruins, and great monu- 
ments of culture, created by the efforts of man's genius over cen- 
turies, would be lost irreparably. Nor would this war spare future 
generations. Its poisonous trail in the form of radioactive contamina- 
tion would long continue to cripple people and claim many lives. 

The situation in the world today is a dangerous one. Various 
military alliances are in existence and the arms race never stops for 
a moment So much inflammable material has accumulated that a 

Speaking at the UN. 


single spark could touch off a catastrophe. The world has reached a 
point where war could become a fact owing to some stupid accident, 
such as a technical fault in a plane carrying a hydrogen bomb or a 
mental aberration in the pilot behind the controls. 

It is well known, moreover, that the arms race is already a heavy 
burden on the peoples. It is causing rising prices on consumer goods, 
depressing real wages, harmfully affecting the economy of many 
states, disrupting international trade. Never blfore have so many 
states, such masses of people, been drawn into war preparations as 
at present. If we consider, in addition to the military, the number of 
people directly or indirectly connected with the production of arms 
and involved in various forms of military research, we shall find that 
over 100 million people and, moreover, the most capable and 
energetic workers, scientists, engineers have been taken from their 
peaceful pursuits. A vast fund of human energy, knowledge, ingenuity 
and skill is being spilled as into a bottomless pit, consumed by the 
growing armaments. 

The annual military expenditures of all states today total 
approximately 100 billion dollars. Is it not time to call a halt to this 
senseless squandering of the people's means and the people's energies 
for the preparation of war and destruction? 

The Soviet Government, guided as it is in its foreign policy 
by the principle of peaceful coexistence, stands for peace and friend- 
ship among all nations. The aim of our domestic policy its one aim 
is to create a life worthy of the best ideals of mankind. Our seven- 
year plan is pervaded with the spirit of peaceableness, of concern for 
the welfare and happiness of the people. The aim of our foreign 
policy its one and invariable aim is to prevent war, to ensure 
peace and security to our country and to all countries. 

Some people in the West expected that the cold war would sap 
the material resources of the Soviet Union and the other socialist 
countries, would undermine their economy. But their calculations 
have been wrong. Even though it has to bear a certain armaments 
burden, the Soviet Union is able to ensure the rapid development 
of its economy and the ever fuller satisfaction of the growing require- 
ments of its people. Of course, the people's material requirements 
would be more amply met if the arms burden were removed. 

The Soviet Union is a resolute and consistent champion of 
disarmament In our state there are no classes or groups interested 
in war and armament building, in the conquest of foreign territories. 
Everyone will agree that to accomplish the great tasks we have set 


ourselves to improve the well-being of the Soviet people, to carry 
out our economic construction plans we need peace. In common 
with the other states who cherish peace, we would like to gear all our 
"economy and resources to peaceful purposes in order to provide our 
people in abundance with food, clothing, housing, etc. With the arms 
race going on, however, we cannot undividedly devote our efforts to 
peaceful construction without endangering the vital interests of our 
people, the interests of the country's security. 

All peoples need peace. Following the conclusion of the Second 
World War, the Soviet Union submitted concrete disarmament pro- 
posals to the United Nations. We proposed the complete prohibition 
of atomic weapons, a substantial reduction of armed forces and arma- 
ments, and a steep cut in arms expenditures. We urged the disman- 
tling of military bases on foreign territory and the withdrawal of 
armed forces from foreign territories. 

We have proved our desire to solve the disarmament problem 
by deeds, and not just words. Time and again the Soviet Union has 
taken the initiative and undertaken concrete steps toward ending the 
arms race and getting down with all speed to practical disarmament 
measures. Immediately after the end of the war, our country carried 
out an extensive demobilization of its armed forces. The Soviet Union 
has given up all the military bases it had after the Second World 
War on the territory of other states. 

You will recall that in the past few years the Soviet armed 
forces have been reduced, unilaterally, by a total of over two million 
men. The Soviet forces in the German Democratic Republic have 
been reduced considerably, and all Soviet troops have been with- 
drawn from the Rumanian People's Republic. We have also made a 
substantial cut in our military expenditures. 

In 1958 the Soviet Union unilaterally suspended tests of atomic 
and hydrogen weapons hi the hope that the other powers would 
follow this noble example. It is only to be regretted that these hopes 
were not justified Now the Soviet Government has decided not to 
resume nuclear explosions in the Soviet Union if the Western Powers 
do not resunie atomic and hydrogen weapon tests. Only if they 
resume tests of nuclear weapons will the Soviet Union consider itself 
free of this commitment 

The disarmament problem has been under discussion for over 
fourteen years now in the United Nations and at other international 
meetings, but no practical results have yet been achieved What is 
the reason? I should not like to rake over the past, to go into an 


analysis of the obstacles and differences that arose in the course of 
the disarmament talks, much less to bring accusations against any- 
one. That is not the important thing now. The important thing, we 
are profoundly convinced, is to remove the main road blocks piled 
up in the way of disarmament, to try to find a new approach to the 
solution of the problem. 

The record of the disarmament talks shows plainly that the 
question of control has been put forward as one of the main obstacles 
to agreement We were and are for strict international control over 
the implementation of the disarmament agreement, when it is 
reached. But we have always been against the control system being 
divorced from actual measures of disarmament, against the control 
organs becoming, in effect, organs for the collection of intelligence 
information while there would in fact be no disarmament 

We are for genuine controlled disarmament, but we are against 
control without disarmament The opponents of disarmament can 
easily make any measure conditional upon control provisions that 
other states will be unable to accept in the conditions of a universal 
arms race. The countries which, for one reason or another, advance 
such far-reaching control demands would themselves most probably 
be disinclined to accept these demands if it came to carrying them 

There is yet another difficulty. So long as disarmament is con- 
ceived as only partial and some armaments are to remain after the 
conclusion of the disarmament agreement, it would still leave states 
the material possibility of attacking. There would always be the fear 
that with these remaining types of armaments and armed forces an 
attack could still be committed. The knowledge that such a possibility 
would remain hampered the disarmament negotiations in no small 

Many states feared that the disarmament measures would affect 
precisely those types of armaments in which they have the greatest 
advantage and which they believe to be particularly necessary to 
themselves. Naturally, under these conditions, in an atmosphere of 
cold war and mutual suspicion, no state, speaking seriously and not 
for propaganda, could reveal its military secrets, the organization of 
its defense and war production, without prejudicing the interests of 
its national security. 

AH the delegates will, I am sure, agree that the collective reason 
of all states, as well as of the United Nations, must be focused on 
finding a new approach to the solution of the disarmament problem. 


The task is to find a lever which would make it possible to stop 
mankind from sliding into the abyss of war. What is essential now 
is to rule out the very possibility of wars being started So long as 
there exist large armies, air forces and navies, nuclear and rocket 
weapons, so long as young men on the threshold of life are first of 
all taught the art of warfare and general staffs are busy working out 
plans for future military operations, there is no guarantee of stable 

The Soviet Government, having comprehensively considered 
the situation, has come to the firm conviction that the way out of 
the deadlock should be sought along the lines of general and com- 
plete disarmament. With such an approach, the possibility of any 
military advantages being created for any states is completely ruled 
out It is general and complete disarmament that will remove all the 
barriers raised during the discussions on partial disarmament and 
clear the way for the establishment of comprehensive 9 complete 

What does the Soviet Government propose? 

The essence of our proposals is that over a period of four years 
all states should effect complete disarmament and thereafter no 
longer possess any means of waging war. 

This means that land armies, navies and air forces would cease 
to exist, general staffs and war ministries would be abolished, mili- 
tary training establishments would be closed Tens of millions of 
men would return to peaceful constructive labor. 

Military bases on foreign territory would be dismantled 

All atomic and hydrogen bombs in the possession of states 
would be destroyed and their further production discontinued The 
energy of fissionable materials would be used exclusively for peaceful 
economic and scientific purposes. 

Military rockets of all ranges would be eliminated and rockets 
would remain only as a means of transportation and of the conquest 
of outer space for the good of all mankind 

The states would retain only strictly limited contingents of 
police (militia) agreed upon for each country, equipped with small 
arms and designed exclusively to maintain internal order and protect 
the personal security of citizens. 

So that no one could violate his obligations, we propose the 
establishment of an international control body comprised of all states. 
A system of control over all disarmament measures should be set up 


which should be instituted and should function according to the 
stages by which disarmament is to be effected 

If disarmament is comprehensive and complete, then upon its 
consummation control will also be general and complete. States will 
have nothing to conceal from one another: None of them will possess 
weapons that could be used against another, and no restraints will 
be imposed on the controllers' zeal. 

This solution of disarmament questions would ensure the com- 
plete security of all states. It would create favorable conditions for 
the peaceful coexistence of states. All international issues would then 
be resolved not by force of arms but by peaceful means. 

We are realists in politics and understand that working out such 
a broad disarmament program will take some time. While such a 
program is being elaborated, while matters are being agreed, we 
must not sit with folded arms and wait 

The Soviet Government considers that the elaboration of a 
program of general and complete disarmament should not hottf up 
the settlement of so acute and entirely ripe a question as the dis- 
continuance of nuclear weapon tests for all time. All the prerequisites 
for settling it are now in evidence. We hope that an appropriate 
agreement on the discontinuance of tests will be concluded and put 
into effect without delay. 

The danger of a nuclear-rocket war which threatens the peoples 
calls for bold, far-reaching solutions to ensure peace. 

A decision to effect general and complete disarmament at an 
early date and the implementation of that decision would usher in 
a new state in international life. The agreement of states to un- 
dertake general and complete disarmament would be convincing, 
practical proof of the absence of any aggressive designs on their part 
and of a sincere desire to base their relations with other states on 
friendship and cooperation. With the destruction of weapons and the 
abolition of armed forces, no material possibilities would remain for 
states to pursue any policy other than that of peace. 

Qn achieving complete disarmament, mankind would feel as 
does an exhausted desert traveler, tormented by fear of dying from 
thirst and exhaustion, when after long weary wanderings he reaches 
an oasis. 

General and complete disarmament would allow enormous 
material and financial resources to be switched from the manufac- 
ture of weapons of death to constructive purposes. Human energy 


could be directed to the creation of material and spiritual values 
beautifying and ennobling man's life and work 

The implementation of a program of general and complete 
disarmament would make it possible to shift enormous sums to the 
building of schools, hospitals, homes, roads, to the production of 
foodstuffs and manufactured goods. The money released would allow 
taxes to be substantially reduced and prices lowered This would 
have a beneficial effect on the living standards of the population and 
would be welcomed by millions of ordinary people. The funds spent 
by the states for military needs over the last decade alone would 
suffice to build over 150 million houses which could comfortably 
accommodate many hundreds of millions of people. 

General and complete disarmament would also create entirely 
new opportunities for aid to the countries whose economies are still 
underdeveloped and who need assistance from the more developed 
countries. Even if only a small part of the money released by the 
termination of the military expenditures of the Great Powers were 
devoted to such aid, it could open up literally a new epoch in the 
economic development of Asia, Africa and Latin America. 

All the artificial obstacles to the development of international 
trade which today exist in the form of discriminatory restrictions, 
embargo lists, etc., would disappear. The industries of such nations 
as the U.S A, Britain, France, West Germany and other highly devel- 
oped countries could at last receive large orders from other states. 
The utilization of the funds released by disarmament would provide 
the widest employment opportunities. That is why the claims that 
disarmament would bring on a crisis or economic recession in the 
highly developed industrial countries of the capitalist world are 

When no country has the actual means of undertaking military 
action against other countries, international relations will develop 
in a spirit of confidence. Suspicion and fear will vanish, all nations 
will be able to treat each other like genuine good neighbors. The 
doors will open wide for economic, commercial and cultural co- 
operation among all states. For the first time the secure and stable 
peace that all peoples so eagerly desire will become a reality. 

Convinced that by the joint efforts of all the countries united 
in the name of the peaceful principles of the United Nations Charter 
these great aims can and must be achieved, the Government of the 
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics submits for the consideration of 


the United Nations a Declaration on General and Complete Disarm- 
ament containing concrete proposals on the subject. 

It goes without saying that if for any reason the Western 
Powers do not evince a readiness at present to embark on general 
and complete disarmament, the Soviet Government is prepared to 
reach agreement with other states on appropriate measures for partial 
disarmament and the strengthening of security. The chief of these, 
in the Soviet Government's opinion, are: 

1) The creation of a control and inspection zone with a reduc- 
tion of foreign troops on the territory of the West European countries 

2) The creation of an atom-free zone in Central Europe; 

3) The withdrawal of all foreign troops from the territory of 
European states and the dismantling of military bases on foreign 

4) The conclusion of a nonaggression pact between the member- 
states of NATO and of the Warsaw Treaty; 

5) An agreement on the prevention of surprise attack by one 
state on another. 

The Soviet Government thinks it appropriate to recall its dis- 
armament proposals of May 10, 1955, containing concrete ideas 
concerning partial disarmament measures. It is convinced that these 
proposals are a good basis for agreement on this vitally important 

This is not the first time the Soviet Union has advanced the idea 
of general and complete disarmament As far back as the period 
between the First and Second World Wars the government of our 
country came forward with a comprehensive program of complete 
disarmament At that time the opponents of disarmament were wont 
to assert that the Soviet Union had put forward these proposals 
because it was an economically and militarily weak country. If in 
those days this false thesis could perhaps delude some, it is now 
evident to all that talk of any weakness of the Soviet Union is absurd. 

The new proposal of the Soviet Government is prompted by the 
sole desire to ensure truly lasting peace among nations. 

We say sincerely to all countries: In contrast to the "Let us 
arm!" slogan, still current in some quarters, we put forward the 
slogan "Let us completely disarm!" Let us rather compete in who 
builds more homes, schools and hospitals for the people; produces 
more grain, milk, meat, clothing and other consumer goods; and not 


in who has more hydrogen bombs and rockets. This will be welcomed 
by all the peoples of the world 

Gentlemen, the United Nations, whose General Assembly I to- 
day have the honor of addressing, can and should play a large part 
in international affairs. Its importance derives from the fact that 
nearly all the nations of the world are represented in it. They have 
united to consider jointly the pressing problems of international rela- 
tions. If two or more states are unable to agree among themselves, 
the United Nations should help them. Its role in such cases is to 
smooth the rough edges in relations between states, which can lead 
to disputes, to tensions and even to wars. By performing its cardinal 
function of strengthening world peace and security, the United Na- 
tions will win the respect it should enjoy, and its prestige will grow. 

But I have to say in all frankness that at present the United 
Nations in some cases, unfortunately, does not perform these func- 
tions. Sometimes, by a wrong approach in the UN, needless tension 
is actually created between states. 

Why does this happen? Because not all UN member-states 
treat with due respect this organization in which mankind reposes 
such hopes. Instead of constantly reinforcing the prestige of the 
United Nations, so that it may really be the most authoritative 
international organ to which the governments of all countries could 
apply whenever in need of getting some vital problem solved, some 
states seek to use it in their own narrow interests. Naturally an inter- 
national organization cannot work effectively for peace if there is 
within it a group of countries which seek to impose their will on 
others. That kind of policy will undermine the foundations of the 
United Nations. If things should continue to develop along these 
lines, which might be called factional, this would lead to deteriora- 
tion of relations between states instead of improving them. From an 
organ expressing the interests of all its members, the United Nations 
would become the organ of a group of states, pursuing the policy of 
that group and not the policy of safeguarding world peace. This 
would in the initial stage engender disrespect for the United Nations 
and then might lead to its break-up, as happened to the League of 
Nations in its day. 

The distinguishing characteristic of a properly functioning inter- 
national organ is that questions ought to be settled there not by a 
formal count of votes but by a reasonable and patient quest for a 
just solution acceptable to alL After all, one cannot expect countries 
against whose will an unjust decision is taken to agree to carry it 


out It leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. Recall how many such in- 
stances there have been in the history of the United Nations! There- 
fore, the United Nations should pass only such decisions as all will 
vote for, seeing in them an expression of the common will and the 
common interest. Such decisions would be recognized as the only 
correct and the only possible ones both by our generation and by 
future historians. 

Naturally, a group of states which at a given moment commands 
a majority can put through the decision it wants. But this is a 
Pyrrhic victory. Such "victories" injure the United Nations, they 
disrupt it 

It should also be borne in mind that in the voting of one 
question or another the majority in the United Nations is a variable 
quantity. It could change against those who today so often bank on 
the voting machine. As the Russian saying goes, "You reap what you 
sow." And so, the wisest and most far-sighted policy is one of seeking 
jointly for mutually acceptable decisions stemming exclusively from 
concern for safeguarding world peace and noninterference in the 
internal affairs of other nations. 

When the Security Council was being established in the UN, 
the idea of agreed decisions was made the basis of its work. And 
a special responsibility for the maintenance of peace was laid upon 
the Great Powers, whose representatives are permanent members of 
the Security Council It was found necessary, in order to avoid com- 
plications in international relations, to establish the principle of 
Great Power unanimity in the Security Council, known as the veto 

Some people are against the veto. But if there were no veto 
there would be no international organization, it would fall to pieces. 
The veto principle obliges the Great Powers to reach a unanimous 
decision on all matters before the Security Council that ensures the 
effective maintenance of peace. It is better to seek unanimous deci- 
sions of the Great Powers than to settle international issues by force 
of arms. 

Gentlemen, I have tried to state frankly some ideas concerning 
the international situation and also concerning our understanding 
of the tasks of the United Nations. We are sure that the proposals 
we have set forth on the instructions of the Soviet Government will 
be received with sympathy by the majority of the people of all 
countries and by the delegates sitting in this hall. 


I should like to assure the delegates to the General Assembly 
that in the Soviet Union the United Nations will continue to have 
a most active participant in all endeavors to rid mankind of the 
burden of armaments and to consolidate world peace. Thank you, 
gentlemen. (Stormy applause.) 


Agreement among the states on the limitation and destruction 
of the weapons of war has for many years been the cherished dream 
of mankind Public leaders and statesmen, and the parties closest 
to the working people, advanced and pressed the demand for dis- 
armament long before mankind experienced the horrors of world 

All nations, large and small, irrespective of their social systems 
and way of life are interested in the adoption of effective disarma- 
ment measures. There are no peoples today who do not feel a deep 
anxiety in the face of the rivalry of states in armaments, a rivalry 
which has become truly unprecedented, especially in the field of 
developing ever more destructive and lethal weapons; and they have 
no more fervent desire than to put an end to this rivalry which is 
fraught with grievous consequences for the destiny of the world 


The armaments race has impressed itself upon men's minds 
as a specter that is always the forerunner of war. So it was when 
Europe, convulsed by the armaments fever, moved step by step 
toward the First World War. And so it was again in the thirties, 
when in a number of countries everything was subordinated to the 
slogan "Guns before butter" and the arsenals were again packed to 
bursting. Everyone knows what came of it. The peoples were plunged 
into the Second World War, which brought them misfortune and 
suffering that caused everything that mankind had endured in the 
darkest periods of its history to pale into insignificance. 

The war ended, but people still did not gain peace of mind. 
Practically the very next day after the roar of the last battles sub- 
sided, the world was again seized by the armaments fever which was, 


this time, far more dangerous to mankind, since the preparations Were 
for nuclear war. 

Never before has the armaments race been fraught with such 
danger as today, in the age of the atom, electronics and the conquest 
of outer space. 

However terrible such earlier instruments of annihilation as 
rapid-fire automatic weapons, tanks, long-range artillery and aircraft 
bombs many have seemed to be, they stand no comparison with 
atomic and hydrogen weapons and rockets. If all the instruments of 
destruction mankind possessed over the centuries were put together, 
they would amount to only an insignificant fraction of what the two 
or three nuclear powers have at their disposal today. 

Indeed, it is known that the explosion of a single large modern 
hydrogen bomb releases a destructive energy surpassing that of all 
the explosives manufactured in the whole world in four years of 
the Second World War. 

The introduction of atomic and rocket weapons into the arma- 
ments of armies, the training of servicemen in their use, and the 
adaptation of the strategy and tactics of warfare to the new weapons 
have already progressed so far that the next military conflict among 
the powers threatens to turn into a war with the employment of all 
the instruments of destruction at the belligerents' command. Outer 
space, unattainable to man just a couple of years ago, can now be 
used, like the seas and air before, for delivering a nuclear attack 
against any point of the globe. 

Both World Wars began between countries which were neigh- 
bors and had a common frontier. But now war can break out between 
countries which are many thousands of kilometers apart, and can 
draw whole continents into its orbit. 

In such a war, if it is not averted in time, distances would be 
measured in thousands and tens of thousands of kilometers, time in 
minutes and seconds, and losses in millions and tens and hundreds 
of millions of human lives. It would be a war that would know no 
distinction between front and rear, between active armies and civilian 
populations, between soldiers and children. 

The Appearance of military alliances which girdle almost the 
entire globe and which bristle with armaments against each other has 
produced a situation where a small spark, an incident of seemingly 
local significance, would be enough to touch off a war conflagration. 
And if up to now the concatenated system of military commitments 

has not been put into motion, if the brakes have held out, there is 
and can be no guarantee that it will not happen in the future. 

Never before have so many states and such masses of people 
been drawn into war preparations as at present There are tens of 
millions of men under arms, and when to these are added those who 
are directly or indirectly connected with the production of arma- 
ments, military research and other activities designed to supply and 
service the armies, it emerges that hundreds of millions of people 
have been taken from the labors of peace. A vast fund of human 
energy, knowledge, ingenuity and skill is being spilled as into a 
bottomless pit, consumed by the growing armaments. 

The armaments race has extended to countries which economi- 
cally cannot carry the burden of armaments, while militarily their 
very existence is jeopardized by it Military bases on foreign terri- 
tory, armed forces stationed thousands of kilometers from their own 
frontiers are palpable proof of that 

Moreover, the stockpiling of mass destruction weapons in the 
arsenals of some powers and the advancement of air, naval and rocket 
bases toward the frontiers of other states compel the states against 
which these war preparations are being conducted to adopt the 
measures necessary to strengthen their security and safeguard a 
life of peace for their peoples. The Soviet Union and all the socialist 
countries, and also many other states who cherish peace, would wish 
to gear all of their economy and resources to peaceful purposes w 
order to provide their people abundantly with food, clothing and 
housing. But they cannot undividedly devote their efforts to peaceful 
construction without mortally endangering the vital interests of theii 
peoples and their very existence. The arming of one side compels 
the other side to act likewise. The quantities of mass destruction 
weapons keep growing and with them grows the danger of a militars 

Today atomic and hydrogen bombs are not only stored at ultra 
secret depots. They are carried by bombers that make flights ovei 
the territory of many West European countries. The situation is 
developing in such a way that super-powerful and super-long-rang* 
weapons could be discharged not only on the orders of governments 
but at the will of the individuals at the control panel of thos 
weapons. But a state on whose territory a nuclear load is dropped 
whether by evil intent or owing to a technical fault or other accident 
is hardly, going to investigate how it happened, but will be obliged t< 
react to it as to a military attack, as to the unleashing of war. Cai 


it be permitted that the question peace or war should be left to 
the mercy of blind chance? Is not all this added proof that the road 
of armaments can be followed no further? The Soviet Union by no 
means accepts armaments rivalry as a fatal inevitability, eternally 
bound to accompany the relations between states. In its foreign 
policy the Soviet Government has been acting upon the conviction 
that it is possible to prevent the development of human society from 
continuing along the road which has led to two world wars, that it is 
possible to ensure that its history shall no longer be, as hitherto, a 
record of sanguinary wars. 

Weapons are created by the hands of man. Those same hands 
can destroy them. 

It is about fourteen years now that the disarmament problem 
has been under discussion in the United Nations. Before that, it was 
discussed for many years by the League of Nations and the disarma- 
ment conference it convened. However, there are to this day no 
practical results, in the sense of any decisions agreed among the states. 

Much could be said about the reasons for this unfortunate state 
of the disarmament question. However, the important thing now is 
not to rake over the past and aggravate the polemics, but to remove 
the chief obstacles that frustrated all previous attempts to reach 
agreement on disarmament. 

The record of many years of disarmament negotiations shows 
that the question of control over disarmament was put forward as 
one of the main obstacles to such agreement 

The Soviet Government stands, and always has stood, for strict 
international control over the fulfillment of agreements on disarma- 
ment measures, when such agreements are achieved All Soviet pro- 
posals for banning atomic weapons and tests, and also for the 
reduction of conventional armaments and armed forces, were invari- 
ably accompanied by specific proposals for effective control on an 
international basis. But the Soviet Government has always been 
against the control system being made a program of measures 
divorced from any actual disarmament, and all the more against the 
control organs becoming organs for the collection of intelligence on 
the armaments of states while there would in fact be no disarmament 
However, besides the complications introduced into the control 
problem artificially, there are also real difficulties attaching to the 
establishment of control under present conditions. They will be seen 
clearly enough if we take, for instance, the problem of banning and 
eliminating nuclear weapons. 


It is well known that the same fissionable materials can be used 
at appropriate enterprises both for the production of nuclear weapons 
and for peaceful purposes. This means that in the present circum- 
stances, with atomic energy being ever more widely used in the 
economy, there is a possibility of part of the fissionable materials 
being secretly channeled to the production of weapons. 

To be completely free in the existing atmosphere of distrust 
of suspicion of this or that state secretly using atomic materials for 
military purposes, it would be necessary to grant foreign controllers 
access to a great number of enterprises in every country, amounting, 
in fact, to a variety of foreign guardianship over an important branch 
of its economy. But on account of this same reason and the distrust 
prevailing among the states, no state can show itself willing to admit 
foreign controllers and inspectors to its enterprises, especially to those 
engaged in military production. 

It is obvious that in the present state of affairs, with the con- 
tinuing armaments race, tension in international relations and lack 
of confidence, the conditions necessary for establishing comprehensive 
controls are not in evidenca 

So long as distrust prevails among the states, the opponents 
of disarmament can easily make any disarmament measure condi- 
tional upon such control provisions as other states will be unable to 
accept For that matter, the states which for, one reason or another 
advance such far-reaching demands as to the powers of the control 
bodies actually would not have any inclination themselves to accept 
such control provisions if it came to carrying them out 

That being the position, to put forward deliberately exaggerated 
demands as regards control, and, all the more, to put control before 
disarmament, making it a preliminary condition of any disarmament 
measures, is tantamount to blocking all approaches to the solution of 
the problem. 

The Soviet Government considers that the time has come to 
evaluate the situation soberly and to recognize that since the ap- 
proach so far applied to the solution of the disarmament problem 
has failed to produce results, the logical conclusion must be drawn 
from that fact That conclusion, in the opinion of the Soviet Govern- 
ment, can only be that it is the duty of all states, as also of the United 
Nations, to find without delay a new way to go about solving the 
disarmament problem, the burning problem of our time. 

What is this new way? What must be done to put an end to a 
position where a huge proportion of the wealth taken by man from 


it be permitted that the qtiestionr-peace or war should be left to 
the mercy of blind chance? Is not all this added proof that the road 
of armaments can be followed no further? The Soviet Union by no 
means accepts armaments rivalry as a fatal inevitability, eternally 
bound to accompany the relations between states. In its foreign 
policy the Soviet Government has been acting upon the conviction 
that it is possible to prevent the development of human society from 
continuing along the road which has led to two world wars, that it is 
possible to ensure that its history shall no longer be, as hitherto, a 
record of sanguinary wars. 

Weapons are created by the hands of man. Those same hands 
can destroy them. 

It is about fourteen years now that the disarmament problem 
has been under discussion in the United Nations. Before that, it was 
discussed for many years by the League of Nations and the disarma- 
ment conference it convened However, there are to this day no 
practical results, in the sense of any decisions agreed among the states. 

Much could be said about the reasons for this unfortunate state 
of the disarmament question. However, the important thing now is 
not to rake over the past and aggravate the polemics, but to remove 
the chief obstacles that frustrated all previous attempts to reach 
agreement on disarmament. 

The record of many years of disarmament negotiations shows 
that the question of control over disarmament was put forward as 
one of the main obstacles to such agreement. 

The Soviet Government stands, and always has stood, for strict 
international control over the fulfillment of agreements on disarma- 
ment measures, when such agreements are achieved All Soviet pro- 
posals for banning atomic weapons and tests, and also for the 
reduction of conventional armaments and armed forces, were invari- 
ably accompanied by specific proposals for effective control on an 
international basis. But the Soviet Government has always been 
against the control system being made a program of measures 
divorced from any actual disarmament, and all the more against the 
control organs becoming organs for the collection of intelligence on 
the armaments of states while there would in fact be no disarmament 

However, besides the complications introduced into the control 
problem artificially, there are also real difficulties attaching to the 
establishment of control under present conditions. They will be seen 
clearly enough if we take, for instance, the problem of banning and 
eliminating nuclear weapons. 


It is well known that the same fissionable materials can be used 
at appropriate enterprises both for the production of nuclear weapons 
and for peaceful purposes. This means that in the present circum- 
stances, with atomic energy being ever more widely used in the 
economy, there is a possibility of part of the fissionable materials 
being secretly channeled to the production of weapons. 

To be completely free in the existing atmosphere of distrust 
of suspicion of this or that state secretly using atomic materials for 
military purposes, it would be necessary to grant foreign controllers 
access to a great number of enterprises in every country, amounting, 
in fact, to a variety of foreign guardianship over an important branch 
of its economy. But on account of this same reason and the distrust 
prevailing among the states, no state can show itself willing to admit 
foreign controllers and inspectors to its enterprises, especially to those 
engaged in military production. 

It is obvious that in the present state of affairs, with the con- 
tinuing armaments race, tension in international relations and lack 
of confidence, the conditions necessary for establishing comprehensive 
controls are not in evidence. 

So long as distrust prevails among the states, the opponents 
of disarmament can easily make any disarmament measure condi- 
tional upon such control provisions as other states will be unable to 
accept For that matter, the states which for, one reason or another 
advance such far-reaching demands as to the powers of the control 
bodies actually would not have any inclination themselves to accept 
such control provisions if it came to carrying them out 

That being the position, to put forward deliberately exaggerated 
demands as regards control, and, all the more, to put control before 
disarmament, making it a preliminary condition of any disarmament 
measures, is tantamount to blocking all approaches to the solution of 
the problem. 

The Soviet Government considers that the tune has come to 
evaluate the situation soberly and to recognize that since the ap- 
proach so far applied to the solution of the disarmament problem 
has failed to produce results, the logical conclusion must be drawn 
from that fact That conclusion, in the opinion of the Soviet Govern- 
ment, can only be that it is the duty of all states, as also of the United 
Nations, to find without delay a new way to go about solving the 
disarmament problem, the burning problem of our time. 

What is this new way? What must be done to put an end to a 
position where a huge proportion of the wealth taken by man from 

nature, created by the genius of scientists, the skill of engineers, the 
efforts of millions and millions of working people is squandered on 
instruments of death and destruction? What must be done to prevent 
tens of millions of men in the prime of their creative energies from 
being taken from productive endeavors for service in the armed 
forces, for the preparation of a devastating war? 

By now the majority of statesmen and public leaders, as well 
as the broad masses of the population in all countries, have already 
come to realke that a new world war would be a terrible tragedy 
for all, and for some countries with relatively small territories and a 
"high density of population, a disaster threatening their very existence. 

The task now is to find a lever by grasping which it will be 
possible to stop mankind from sliding into the abyss of a nuclear- 
missile war. 

With the present nature of international relations and the 
present level of military technology, when any military conflict can 
ted to a nuclear-missile war, a radical solution of the problem of 
security for all states involves precluding the very possibility of 
wars being started So long as there exist large armies, air forces and 
navies, nuclear and missile weapons, so long as young men on the 
threshold of life are first of all taught the art of warfare and general 
staffs are busy working out plans of future military operations, there 
is and can be no secure peace among nations in the present situation. 
Not equilibrium in armaments, which every state tries to interpret 
and turn to its own advantage, but a position where the states will 
not have the material means of waging war that is the most effec- 
tive and solid guarantee of peace that meets not only remote ideals 
but the urgent demands of the people. 

After thoroughly assessing the present international situation 
and the experience of previous disarmament negotiations, the Gov- 
ernment of the Soviet Union has arrived at the conviction that the 
surest way to a practical solution of the cardinal international prob- 
lem of our day ^the disarmament problem is the way of general 
and complete disarmament of all states. 

By general and complete disarmament the Soviet Government 
means the renunciation by aU states without exception of the main- 
tenance of any armed lorces save for minimum internal security 
contingents (militia, police) equipped with small arms and designed 
to maintain order within each country. 

This means that land armies, navies and air forces will cease 
to exist; general staffs and war ministries will be abolished; military 


training establishments will be closed Tens of millions of men 
return to peaceful constructive labor. 

The foreign military bases now existing on the territory of a 
number of states, which injure the sovereignty and security of those 
states and do untold harm to the cause of international confidence 
and cooperation among all nations, will be dismantled 

All atomic and hydrogen bombs in the possession of states will 
be destroyed and their further production discontinued Hie energy 
of fissionable materials will be used exclusively for peaceful economic 
and scientific purposes. 

Military rockets of all ranges will be eliminated and rockets 
will remain only as a means of transportation and of the conquest 
of outer space for the good of all mankind 

Guns, tanks, shells, torpedoes will be melted down to provide 
more metal for peaceful construction. Warships and military aiitraft 
will be scrapped 

The stockpiles of chemical and bacteriological weapons accumu- 
lated by some states poison gases and asphyxiants, cultures of 
lethal germs, potential sources of dangerous epidemic diseases all 
this will be destroyed conclusively, without a trace and for all time. 

Such is the program of disarmament which the Soviet Gov- 
ernment submits for the consideration of all states, and firslt of all 
of the UN members, and proposes that its implementation be started 
without delay. 

This is a radical program, but precisely therein lies the guaran- 
tee of its feasibility under present conditions. The existence of oppos- 
ing alignments in which dozens of states are bound by mutual mili- 
tary commitments, the fantastically rapid development of military 
technology all this requires bold, far-reaching solutions to ensure 

The proposal for complete and general disarmament differs 
from all other disarmament proposals in that its realization abso- 
lutely rules out any inequality of conditions, the possibiEty of any 
military advantages for any state or states. 

No one is likely to deny that if the radical decision were taken 
to carry out within a short fixed term complete and general disarm- 
ament of all the states, and if it were put into practice, the entire 
international situation would change fundamentally. The relations 
between states, including countries belonging to different social sys- 
tems and to opposing military-political alignments, would be pot on 
an utterly new basis. 


Fear of possible aggression on the part of this or that state 
would, in effect, be eliminated. The readiness of states to undertake 
general complete disarmament would be convincing practical proof 
of the absence of any aggressive designs on their part and of their 
sincere desire to base their relations with other states on the principle 
of peaceful coexistence; and with the destruction of armaments and 
the abolition of armed forces, no physical possibility would remain 
for states to pursue any policy other than a peaceable one. The 
destruction of the war weapons would provide a still firmer basis for 
peaceful coexistence between states, since any other line in the 
development of international relations would be completely pre- 

Under general and complete disarmament the distinction be- 
tween the victors and vanquished of the last war would be obliter- 
ated The importance and international influence of the powers would 
be determined not by their military might but by the degree of their 
partieipation in creating the material and spiritual values that enrich 
mankind. It would not be the number of divisions, bombers or 
rockets, not the tonnage of surface or submarine navies, nor stock- 
piles of atomic and hydrogen bombs, but achievements in the pro- 
duction of material wealth, in the improvement of people's conditions 
of life and work, in the struggle for the prolongation of man's life 
span, that would then serve as the measure of the prestige of states 
and their contribution to the history of mankind 

Of course, even after the fulfillment of the general disarmament 
program differences between states, particularly between states with 
different social and economic systems, will remain. These differences 
will not, however, be resolved through military clashes, but only by 
peaceful economic competition, by the struggle of ideas and by other 
peaceful means as prescribed by the United Nations Charter. 

Under the conditions of general and complete disarmament the 
difficulties connected with control will also disappear. Under these 
conditions the states will have nothing to conceal from each other. 
There will be every .possibility to carry out any checks, any inspec- 
tion if any doubt arises about the good faith of this or that state in 
the fulfillment of its disarmament obligations. 

In other words, a decision to effect general complete disarma- 
ment would at last allow a way to be found out of the vicious circle 
of distrust between the states, which now fetters them in their nego- 
tiations of partial disarmament measures and prevents even one real 
step forward being made in this field 


When general complete disarmament becomes a fact, different 
and much more favorable conditions will also arise for solving many 
complicated political problems which still remain outstanding, among 
them European problems. 

Lastly, general complete disarmament would open before all 
countries new vistas in the field of their economic development 

There would arise opportunities hitherto unseen to rapidly im- 
prove the living standards of all nations by putting to good use the 
money which is now being spent by the states for the maintenance 
of armed forces and the manufacture of weapons. 

Opponents of disarmament not infrequently try to discredit the 
very idea of disarmament by alleging that the discontinuance of 
weapons manufacture would be bound to cause economic difficulties 
and deprive of employment many people now engaged in the mili- 
tary industries. But to put the matter in this way is a deliberate 

Do not the lethal weapons being manufactured at present con- 
sume fabulous sums of public money which could be used to build 
homes for the people, new schools for their children, free hospitals 
for those who need medical treatment, and for instituting or increas- 
ing pensions for the aged and disabled? Would not the utilization 
of these funds for peaceful purposes create the broadest employment 

There can be no doubt that general and complete disarmament 
would permit the creation of conditions for such material and spiritual 
progress in all countries as would exceed by many times the existing 
rates of their development The billions that would pour in a mighty 
torrent into the civil economies as a result of the discontinuance of 
military expenditures would be utilized in new and far more favor- 
able conditions than those obtaining now. The artificial partitions by 
which states are presently isolating themselves from one another, 
protecting their achievements in science and technology out of mil*- 
tary and strategic considerations, would gradually disappear. Scien- 
tists in all countries would be able to work exclusively for the good 
of man, for the improvement of his Ufa Unhampered exchange of 
experience would stimulate scientific, technical and economic prog- 
ress in each individual country and all countries taken together. 

Were all states to pool their efforts and allocate the funds 
necessary for launching an all-out offensive against such enemies of 
man as cancer and some other dangerous diseases still difficult to 

cure, these would be brought under control in a short time. General 
disarmament would create the prerequisites for such pooling of 
efforts in the fight for man's health. 

One of the results of the growth of confidence among the states 
in the conditions of general and complete disarmament would be the 
broad development of international trade. The artificial obstacles to 
the development of this trade which are now created by certain 
powers in the form of discriminatory restrictions, embargo lists, etc., 
would disappear. The industries of such countries as the USA, 
Britain, West Germany and France would be able finally to avail 
themselves of the ample opportunities for obtaining large orders 
from other states. Mutually beneficial trade would have a favorable 
effect on the economy of the trading nations. 

General and complete disarmament would also create entirely 
new opportunities for aid to the countries whose economies are at 
present still underdeveloped and need assistance from more ad- 
vanced countries. Even if only a small part of the funds released by 
the termination of the military expenditures of the Great Powers 
were devoted to such aid, it could usher in a new era in the economic 
development of Asia, Africa and Latin America 

It will suffice to cite the following example: 

The construction of the Aswan High Dam and the Nile hydro- 
electric installations connected with it, which has been started in the 
Egyptian part of the United Arab Republic, is probably the largest 
construction project being carried out at present in any of the under- 
developed states of Africa or Asia If general and complete disarma- 
ment is put into effect and the highly developed industrial countries 
allocate, say, 10 per cent of the funds thus saved for assistance to 
underdeveloped countries, such allocations from the budgets of two 
powers alone the USA and the Soviet Union would be enough to 
build several such dams annually. 

The direct military expenditures of the member-states of the 
NATO military bloc in 1958 alone reached the sum of 60 billion 
dollars. If one-tenth of this sum were used for assistance to under- 
developed countries, it Would make possible the annual construction 
of more than ten metallurgical plants similar to those now being 
built in India 

Such are the potentialities for assisting the economic rise of the 
underdeveloped countries in conditions of general and complete dis~- 


armament The Soviet Union stands for utilizing these potentialities 
to the fullest 

This is not the first time the idea of general and complete dis- 
armament has been put forward. The Soviet Government advanced 
proposals on this score as far back as the period between the two 
World Wars. The interests of rival groups of powers which sought 
to direct the military might of the aggressive states against the only 
socialist state then in existence prevented the adoption of this Soviet 
proposal, and this led to disastrous consequences for the world. 

The opponents of the proposals for general and complete dis- 
armament were wont to allege at that time that the Soviet Union 
made those proposals because it was an economically and militarily 
weak country. If in those days this false thesis could perhaps mislead 
some, it is obvious to all now that talk about any weakness of the 
Soviet Union is absurd and that the new Soviet proposal for general 
and complete disarmament is prompted by the sole desire to promote 
truly lasting peace among the nations. 

The Soviet Union, the Chinese People's Republic, all the social- 
ist countries are emphatically opposed to war and the manufacture 
of the weapons of war. But it would be wrong to think that states 
with a different social system have no reason to sincerely and unre- 
servedly support the proposal for general and complete disarmament 
Destruction of the weapons of war cannot and will not run counter 
to the national interests of any state. No government, if it really 
cares about the future of its country and its people, can take a 
negative stand on the proposal for general and complete disarmament 

There are more than a hundred states on the political map of 
the world. These states have attained different levels of economic 
development, they have different social and political systems, they 
differ in their people's living conditions and standards of culture. But 
despite all the diversity of conditions under which people in different 
countries live, there is one thing they have in common: the desire to 
prevent another war, to establish eternal peace in the world. When 
no state has the actual wherewithal to launch hostilities against other 
states, the development of international relations will be marked by 
sincere confidence. 

Convinced that by the joint efforts of all the states united in 
the name of the peaceful principles of the United Nations Charter 
all these great aims can and must be achieved, the Government of 
the USSR submits for consideration by the United Nations the 
proposal for general and complete disarmament 



The program of general and complete disarmament should in- 
clude the following measures: 

Disbandment of all armed forces (land, naval and air) and the 
prohibition of their re-establishment in any form; 

Destruction of arms and ammunition of all types, both in the 
armed forces and in stockpiles; 

Scrapping of all warships, military aircraft and all other types 
of war materiel; 

Complete prohibition of atomic and hydrogen weapons dis- 
continuance of the production of all types of these weapons, their 
elimination from the armaments of the states, and destruction 'of 
stockpiles of same; 

Complete discontinuance of the production of rocket weapons 
of all types and ranges, including space rockets for military purposes, 
and their destruction; 

Prohibition of the production, possession and storage of chemical 
and bacteriological weapons, and destruction of stockpiles of these 

Dismantling of all types of military bases on foreign territory 
land, naval and air, and of all rocket-launching installations; 

Abolition of military production at war plants and of war pro- 
duction facilities in general industry; 

Discontinuance of all military training and musters, both in 
armies and in public organizations, and the enactment of law abolish- 
ing military service in any form compulsory, voluntary, through 
recruitment, etc.; 

Abolition of war ministries, general staffs, military training 
institutions, and of military and para-military establishments and 
organizations of all kinds; 

Discontinuance of allocation of funds for military purposes in 
any form, both out of the state budget and by public organizations 
and private persons; 

Prohibition by law of war propaganda and military indoctrina- 
tion of the youth, and the enactment of laws providing for the strict- 
est punishment for violation of any of the above measures. 

The states should retain only strictly limited contingents, agreed 
for every country, of police (militia), equipped with small arms and 
designed solely to maintain internal order and protect the personal 
security of citizens. 


To supervise the punctual implementation of the measures of 
general and complete disarmament there shall be established an 
international control body comprised of all states. The personnel of 
the control body shall be recruited on an international basis with 
due regard to the principle of equitable geographical distribution. 

The international control body shall have at its disposal all 
facilities necessary to exercise strict control The functions and powers 
of that body shall correspond to the nature of the disarmament 
measures being carried out. 

The Soviet Government proposes that the program of general 
and complete disarmament be carried out as soon as possible 
within a period of four years. 

In the first stage it is proposed to carry out the following 

Reduction, under appropriate control, of the strength of the 
armed forces of the USSR, the USA and CPR (the People's Republic 
of China) to the level of 1,700,000, and of those of the United King- 
dom and France to 650,000 each. 

Reduction of the strength of the armed forces of other states to 
levels to be agreed at a special session of the United Nations General 
Assembly or at a World Conference on General and Complete 

Reduction of the armaments and war materiel at the disposal 
of the armed forces of states by such proportions that the remaining 
quantity of armaments corresponds to the determined level of armed 

In the second stage it is proposed to carry out: 

Completion of the abolition of the armed forces retained by the 

Dismantling of all military bases on foreign territory. Troops 
and military personnel shall be withdrawn from foreign territory to 
within their own national frontiers and disbanded. 

In the third stage: 

All types of nuclear and rocket weapons shall be destroyed 

The materiel of the air force shall be liquidated 

Prohibition of the production, possession and storing of chemical 
and bacteriological weapons shall come into force. All stocks of 
chemical and bacteriological weapons in the possession of states shall 
be removed and destroyed under international control. 

Scientific research for war purposes and the development of 
weapons and war materiel shall be prohibited 


War ministries, general staffs, all military and para-military 
establishments and organizations shall be abolished. 

All military training and musters shall be terminated. States 
shall prohibit by law military training of the youth. 

In accordance with their respective constitutional procedures 
states shall enact laws abolishing military service in any form 
compulsory, voluntary, through recruiting, etc. and prohibiting the 
re-establishment in overt or covert form of any military or para- 
military establishments or organizations. 

Allocation of funds for military purposes in any form, both out 
of state budgets and by public organizations, shall be discontinued. 
The funds released by the implementation of general and complete 
disarmament shall be used to reduce or entirely abolish taxes on the 
population, to subsidize the national economies and to render exten- 
sive economic and technical assistance to underdeveloped countries. 

To control the implementation of the measures of general and 
complete disarmament, an international control body is to be set up. 
The scope of control and inspection shall correspond to the stage of 
the phased disarmament 

After the consummation of general and complete disarmament, 
which must include the abolition of all types of armed forces and 
the destruction of all types of weapons, including weapons of mass 
destruction (nuclear, rocket, chemical, bacteriological), the interna- 
tional control body shall have free access to everything subject to 

The control organization may set up a system of aerial observa- 
tion and aerial photography over the territories of states. 

During the implementation of the program of general and com- 
plete disarmament, up to the time of disbandment of all armed 
forces, the states shall maintain between the various services of their 
armed forces the ratio which existed between them at the time the 
disarmament treaty entered into force. 

The program of general and complete disarmament shall be 
carried out by the states in strict conformity with the time limits 
specified in the treaty, and its implementation cannot be suspended 
or made dependent on the fulfillment of any conditions not provided 
for by the treaty. 

Against the event of any state attempting to circumvent or violate 
the treaty on general and complete disarmament, the treaty should 


include a provision to the effect that any violation of it shall be 
subject to immediate consideration by the Security Council and the 
General Assembly of the United Nations in accordance with their 

It goes without saying that the Soviet Government wishes to 
view the existing situation realistically, and if for any reason the 
Western Powers do not evince a readiness at present to embark on 
general and complete disarmament, the Soviet Government is pre- 
pared, as before, to reach agreement with other states on appropriate 
partial measures for disarmament and the strengthening of security. 
The chief of these, in the opinion of the Soviet Government, are: 

1) Creation of a control and inspection zone with a reduction 
of foreign troops on the territory of the West European countries 

2) Creation of an atom-free zone in Central Europe; 

3) Withdrawal of all foreign troops from the territory of Euro- 
pean states and dismantling of military bases on foreign territory; 

4) Conclusion of a nonaggression pact between the member- 
states of NATO and of the Warsaw Treaty; 

5) An agreement on the prevention of surprise attack by one 
state on another. 

The Soviet Government thinks it appropriate to recall its dis- 
armament proposals of May 10, 1955, containing concrete ideas 
concerning partial disarmament measures. It is convinced that these 
proposals constitute a good basis for agreement on this vitally impor- 
tant problem. 

As to the question of the cessation of nuclear weapons tests, the 
Soviet Government stands, now as before, for immediate termination 
of these tests for all time. 

The Soviet Government expresses its deep conviction that the 
proposed radical solution of the disarmament problem would ensure 
a fundamental change in the development of international relations, 
establish an atmosphere of confidence between the states and create 
the conditions for a peaceful life for the peoples. The Soviet Govern- 
ment calls upon the governments of all countries of the world, and 
particularly the Governments of the Great Powers which have the 
most powerful armed forces, which are permanent members of the 
Security Council, and which bear a special responsibility to the peo- 
ples for world security to proceed jointly and without delay to the 
implementation of general and complete disarmament. 



N. S. Khrushchev and his party left New York on September 19 
for Los Angeles. 

Before his departure N. S. Khrushchev made the following 

Ladies and gentlemen, we visited New York and spent two days 
here at the kind invitation of the Mayor, Mr. Wagner. And although 
that is a short period, we were very pleased to have a glimpse, if 
only cursory, of your 1 city, to. meet its residents, its civic leaders and 
businessmen. It may be said that in a way I am also a representative 
of my country's business world, because under our socialist system 
the Government of the Soviet Union directs not only the political, 
but also the economic life of the state. 

I have become convinced that the absolute majority of officials 
and businessmen in your city, and particularly the ordinary working 
people, treated us representatives of a different, socialist world 
with great regard. 

I was a miner in the past and feel best of all, like a fish in water, 
when I am among working people. Regrettably, in your city I have 
had no opportunity of coming into contact with the ordinary people 
the workers, who are the backbone of the life of the city, the 
producers of its wealth. It was not because the city authorities 
wanted to prevent such contact. They explained that they feared 
provocative acts by a handful of hooligans who might have taken 
advantage of such contact to stage a provocation, although these 
elements are, of course, only a drop in the ocean among the friendly 
population of New York. The people of New York came out into 
the streets in large numbers and gave us a friendly welcome. We 
appreciate it, and are grateful to them. 

Our visit to your country and the return visit to the Soviet 
Union by President Eisenhower will evidently mark the beginning 
of an improvement and expansion of relations between our countries. 
We are indebted to the President for his kind invitation and will, in 
turn, do everything to receive him appropriately in our country. 

I should like to thank the Secretary General of the United 
Nations Organization, Mr. Hammarskjold, who invited me to address 
the General Assembly and gave a dinner last night at which I met 
representatives of many member-countries of the United Nations. 


I also thank the delegates at the UN General Assembly for the 
attention with which they listened to my address at the meeting. In 
that address I made very important disarmament proposals on behalf 
of the Soviet Government If these proposals are supported by the 
governments of other countries, it will mark the start of a new era 
in international relations and lay the foundation for enduring friend- 
ship and cooperation among nations. 

I assure you that the Soviet Government and I will do all in 
our power to strengthen peace and friendship among nations. 

As I leave your great city, I should like to convey greetings and 
best wishes for happiness and prosperity to the people of New York 

Good-bye, ladies and gentlemen! 


IN LOS ANGELES September 19 

N. S. Khrushchev and his parly arrived in Los Angeles on Septem- 
ber 19 at 12:09 P.M., local time. 


On September 19 Eric Johnston, President of the Motion Picture 
Association of America, and Spyros P. Skouras, owner of the Twentieth 
Century-Fox Studios, gave a luncheon in honor of N. S. Khrushchev. 

Spyros P. Skouras, the owner of Twentieth Century-Fox Studios, 
made a speech in which he warmly greeted N. S. Khrushchev on his 
arrival in Hollywood. He also expressed his opinion on a number of 
questions concerning the film exchange between the USA and the USSR. 
Skouras used the opportunity to return again to the topic already used 
time and again by American speakers concerning the "merits" of the 
capitalist way of life. 

N. S. Khrushchev spoke in reply: 

I am also addressing you, my dear brother Greek! (N. S. Khrush- 
chev turned at this point to Spyros P. Skouras, President of the 
Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, who spoke before him.) 
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, Russians have from times of old called 
the Greeks brothers, because the Russians took part in the war 
against the Turks to liberate Greece. You should also know that 
back in ancient times the Russians adopted the religious, Christian 
rites of the Greeks. So you and we are also in a way brothers in 
Christ (Animation, applause.) You might say to me that Fm an 
atheist But then I am speaking not only for myself, but also on 
behalf of our entire people, among whom there are both atheists and 
believers Christians, Moslems and people of other religions. 

Americans always begin their speeches by saying **Ladies and 
Gentlemen." Allow me, too, to begin that way. 

Ladies and Gentlemen (applause) f 

I thank Mr. Johnston for the invitation to this meeting. 

I am very glad to meet the flower of the U.S. stage and screen 
world represented in this hall. I think the comrades who have come 
with me to the United States and are accompanying me share my joy. 


I must say that I had planned to speak along somewhat different 
lines, but Mr. Spyros Skouras here has led me off my tack. (Laughter, 
applause.) I hadn't meant my speech to follow the direction which 
Mr. Skouras laid down in his speech, for some people might have 
suspected me of having come here to make propaganda for our way 
of life and of wanting to win over all of you fine Americans to our 
side. By the way, I should like that Anyone wishing to come to our 
country is welcome, we'll treat him to Russian pies. (Laughter, ap- 
plause.) But since you've brought up the subject of how ordinary 
people work their way up, allow me to answer you. 

Mr. Skouras said he had risen from the ranks. What were you 
in Greece? (Skouras says that he began working for hire at the age 
of 12.) 

That naturally produces an impression, and I wish to express 
my respect for you. But I'm not amazed. Would you like to know 
what I was? I began working when I learned to walk. Till the age 
of 15 I tended calves, then sheep, and then the landlord's cows. I did 
all that before I was 15. Then I worked at a factory owned by Ger- 
mans and later in coal pits owned by Frenchmen. I worked at 
Belgian-owned chemical plants, and now I am Prime Minister of the 
great Soviet state. (Stormy applause, Fofce: "We knew that! 9 ) 

KHRUSHCHEV: What if you did? I'm not ashamed of my past 
All honest labor, whatever its nature, is worthy of respect (Applause.) 
Work, as such, cannot be dirty. If s only the conscience that can be. 
(Applause.) All honest labor is worthy of respect 

SKOURAS: How many Prime Ministers are there in Russia? 

KHRUSHCHEV: And how many Presidents do you have? (Laugh- 
ter, applause.) Anyway, I'll answer you. We have the Government of 
the Soviet Union and I have been made Chairman of the Council 
of Ministers. We also have 15 Union Republics and each republic 
has its government. In other words, there are 15 Prime Ministers. 
Besides, we have Prime Ministers of the Autonomous RepubBcs. 
How many do you have? (Laughter, applause.) 

SKOURAS: We have two million presidents of companies. (Laugh- 

KHRUSHCHEV:We have Comrade Tikhonov here with us. Please 
rise. Is anyone here in America richer than this man? What is he? 
He was a worker, then became a metallurgical engineer. And now 
he is Chairman of the Dnepropetrovsk Economic Council He is in 
charge of huge iron-and-steel worts. He is in charge of huge chemical 
works. The Dnepropetrovsk Economic Council supplies more than 


JV. S. Khrushchev chats with Mr. Erie Johnston, President of 
the National Motion Picture Association, during a luncheon given 
by the Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation in Hollywood. 

half the iron ore mined in the Soviet Union. Isn't that enough, Mr. 
Skouras? (Laughter.) 

SKOURAS: That's a monopoly! 

KHRUSHCHEV: Yes, it is a monopoly, but a monopoly of the 
people! Comrade Tikhonov has no capital of his own. All that he 
manages belongs to the people. (Applause.) So it's no use arguing 
about who has greater opportunities, you or we, because you can't 
beat us there. 

We have Professor Yemelyanov here with us. He is an atomic 
scientist of ours. What was he? An ex-worker, he graduated from an 
institute and became a metallurgical engineer. Now he is an eminent 
scientist in the field of atomic energy. There you have two of our 
presidents, and we have millions of presidents just like them. 

As you see, gentlemen, you had better put aside the question 
of ordinary people working their way up. That's the best thing you 
can do. (Animation, applause.) I might quote the Russian saying in 
this regard It says, "You cannot catch old sparrows with chaff." 

America is a fine country and its great people are a worthy 
people. Time was when America was admired by all peoples of the 


world. It has taught everyone a lesson in industrial development. It 
is the home of assembly-line production, which is the most progressive 
and efficient industrial process. After the Revolution we set out to 
learn from the Americans. We sent our engineers to you for training. 
They studied in your colleges and universities and were employed as 
ordinary workers at Ford's and alsewhere. The man in charge of our 
automobile industry today is Engineer Strokin, a Minister of the 
Soviet Government. He is one of our best automobile engineers. He 
used to work for Ford, and Ford thought highly of him; he suggested 
that Strokin stay and work for him. If Grandfather Ford were alive, 
he could have told you what his pupil is worth. 

Colonel Cooper, an American engineer, was awarded the Order 
of the Red Banner of Labor for services as consultant for the Dnieper 
Hydropower Project Hundreds of American engineers worked in our 
industries at the time of the First Five-Year Plan. We thank you for 
it and bow low before you for your help. (Applause.) You may be 
proud of our successes, just as a good teacher, or professor, is proud 
when his effort is rewarded by his pupil being worthy of his preceptor. 
We learned from you, and you need not be ashamed of your pupils, 
you should be proud of them, because now we want to catch up with 
you. (Animation, applause.) It follows that our people are bright 
pupils, not dunces. (Laughter, applause.) In the First Five- Year Plan 
years, when you helped us build our first tractor plant, it took us two 
years to get it going properly, because we had no experience. When 
Ford helped us build the Gorky Automobile Plant, we ruined quite a 
few machines before learning to make automobiles. But now we, 
your ex-pupils, have sent a rocket into outer space and a Soviet 
pennant has now reached the moon. (Stormy applause.) Not bad 
pupils, are we? (Animation, applause.) Yet there are still some peo- 
ple in your country who keep harping that people in the Soviet Union 
are little short of slaves. But what sort of slave system is that? How 
could a slave system have assured such unprecedented progress in 
science and art as we have made in our country? 

The reason why Roman civilization, as well as Greek civiliza- 
tion, declined, esteemed Mr. Skouras, was that it was a civilization 
built on slave labor, which shackled man's energy, will and freedom. 
Science and the arts can attain full bloom only if there is the fullest 
freedom of the individual and of society. (Applause.) 

You and we have different ideas on this matter. You say that 
profit, or business as you call it, is the prime mover of people's 
energy, of their intellect and initiative. We say a different thing: 


The prime mover is man's conscience, his awareness of the fact that 
he is free and working for himself, for his kin, for the society in 
which he lives, that the means of production belong to society and 
not to some individual who grows rich by exploiting other people's 

You are against our concept and we are against yours. Well, 
whaf s to be done about it? Carry on under capitalism, with your 
corporations and whatever else you have. Don't seek salvation for 
"God's lost sheep" the Soviet people, who have chosen the path of 
socialist development You'll only gain by it if we come a cropper 
and return to the fold of capitalism. Why should you worry if you 
think we are on the wrong path? (Laughter.) You have done your 
civic duty. You have told us that we are following a path which you 
think leads us to a pitfalL That will do, thank you for warning us. 
But I say to you that I see no pitfall ahead but a clear vista, the 
future happiness of mankind. Some of you may believe that I don't 
understand certain simple things. That is their affair, of course. But 
I, too, am entitled to tell such people that they have not yet risen 
to an understanding of the new that is communist construction. 

Where are we to seek a way out of the present situation? Shall 
we settle the matter in a free-for-all? That, indeed, is how disputes 
were settled in the past But formerly things were much simpler; 
people would come to grips and tear out handfuls of each other's 
hair, beard and whiskers, and then new beards and new whiskers 
would grow in their place. But now you know that if a new rough- 
and-tumble ensued, there would be nothing left to grow; as we say 
in Russia, "It's too late to cry over lost hair after your head is cut 
off." (Laughter, applause.) 

That is why, ladies and gentlemen, we say: Let us live in peace 
(Stormy applause.) Let time judge who is right and who is wrong. 
Time is the best judge. This is our attitude. I have come to you so 
that we may achieve a better understanding of each other, so that 
you may get a better idea of what our people are like I am not a 
delegate sent to conduct diplomatic negotiations, I am the guest of 
your President, the guest of your great country. And that is why I 
want to discuss things in a way that will enable us to find reasonable 
solutions and settle controversial issues with the object of banishing 
war and establishing peace and friendship between the peoples of 
our countries and between all peoples. (Stormy applause.) 

I think that the argument with my brother Greek on this matter 
is over and that each retains his own opinion. I respect your opinion, 


so you, too, leave mine alone. (Animation.) Carry on under capital- 
ism, "and God help you," as the saying goes. (Laughter, applause.) 
And we, for our part, will carry on under socialism and build 
communism. At the moment you are ahead of us in the economic 
field, we still have to put in a great deal of work and sweat to 
catch up with you. Very good, we will put our backs to it but we 
will catch and pass you, and forge ahead I am convinced of that 
You may laugh at it for the moment, but you'd do better to wait 
till we pass you and say, "Good-bye, Messrs. Capitalists, our train is 
moving on." (Animation.) By the way, a group of U.S. economists 
who studied our country's potentialities in the competition with your 
country have estimated that in production the Soviet Union will 
overtake the United States by 1970. I repeat, it isn't I who say so 
but American economists. If you like, I will let you read their report 
That is, if you haven't read it yet I must say that nowadays I read 
less fiction and fewer political books, because I have to read mostly 
statements made by U.S. Senators, economists and journalists. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I had not meant to make a political 
speech here. It was Mr. Skouras who introduced class complications 
from the outset (Laughter.) I did not want that, I wanted to say 
nice things to you. I wanted to tell you we were very happy to meet 
you. In the Soviet Union, you know, we have the deepest respect and 
affection for intellectuals. And you are not only intellectuals, but 
toilers of the most refined, I might say the most delicate, of arts- 
subtle artistry. That being so, you require gentle treatment, loving 
care and warmth, like orchids, which need the right humidity, light 
and warmth. In our country, we cannot think of making any progress 
without producing an intelligentsia of our own, without developing 
our culture in every way. There would be no point in building a 
new society without that 

I recall certain incidents of our Civil War, my meetings and 
conversations with intellectuals of the former, czarist Russia. I was 
in the Red Army when we beat the White Guards and drove them 
into the Black Sea. My unit was stationed in the Kuban region, and 
I was quartered in the house of an educated family. The landlady 
was a graduate of the St Petersburg Institute for young ladies of 
gentle birth. As for me, I suppose I still smelled of coal when I was 
living in her house. There were other educated people in that house 
a lawyer, engineer, teacher and musician, We Red Army men 
mixed with them. When they met me, a Communist, they saw that, 


far from eating human flesh, I was starving, to put it plainly. Some- 
times I even had no bread, but I never tried to take any away from 
them or, indeed, ask for anything. They came to respect me. The 
mistress of the house saw that we Bolsheviks were not at all the 
sort of people our enemies made us out to be. Members of the old 
intelligentsia convinced themselves more and more that Communists 
were honest people who sought no personal gain and dedicated them- 
selves to the common weal We were still unpolished, uneducated 
workers at that time, but we wanted to receive an education, to learn 
to govern the state, to build a new society, and we devoted all our 
energy to it. I remember the landlady asking me: "Tell me, what do 
you know about ballet? You're a simple miner, aren't" you?" To tell 
the truth, I didn't really know anything about ballet at that time, 
because I hadn't seen any ballet then and, moreover, had never 
seen a ballerina. (Laughter.) I had no idea what it was all about, 
so to speak. (Laughter.) But I said to her, "Just wait, we're going 
to have everything, ballet too." Frankly speaking, if I had been asked 
at that time just what we were going to have, I might not quite have 
known what to say, but I was certain that there was a better life 
ahead It was Lenin's Party that had instilled this certainty in our 

And now I wish to ask you what country has the most highly 
developed ballet Would it be your country? No. Why, you don't 
even have a state opera and ballet theater. Your theaters subsist 
solely on the hand-outs of wealthy people. But in our country it is 
the state that appropriates funds for the development of art The 
whole world recognizes that Soviet ballet is the most extensively 
developed. We are proud of it When our ballet company toured the 
United States, you rewarded it with well-deserved applause and 
praise. And what about our dramatic theater, what about our stage- 
craft? I won't brag but will merely ask you to consult your conscience 
and tell me whether our theater is on the decline or on the rise. 
And what about our movies? You and we have different tastes. But 
it is a fact, isn't it, that our films win prizes at international festivals. 
They are awarded to our films by impartial people who know their 
business. One of the prizes at a recent world festival went to the 
screen version of The Fate of a Man, a story by M. A. Sholokhov, 
the outstanding writer, who is here with us. The film is a masterpiece. 
We also give our intelligentsia substantial material support At 
any rate, they don't have to go to the doctor to be treated for under- 
nourishment; in fact, they often seek medical advice against excessive 


weight. (Laughter.) That isn't a bad indication. Professor Markov 
here, who is a prominent doctor, will bear me out (Applause.) 

Our art workers receive not only the remuneration that they 
earn. The best of them are also decorated or awarded Lenin Prizes, 
That is a token of the deep respect in which they are held by our 
people and government. Come and see our country, and speak to 
our art workers! And what about literature? We are proud of It 
Meet Mikhail Alexandrovich Sholokhov, a Don Cossack He has 
brought fante to our country by writing And Quiet Flows the Don, 
Virgin Soil Upturned and other excellent works. 

Now I will answer a question put by my Greek friend. By the 
way, Mr. Skouras, I hope you are not offended that I take this liberty 
in speaking to you? It is just to show my good feelings for you. If 
you are oifended in any way, I'm willing to apologize and to take 
no more liberties. 

SKOURAS: I am honored to have the Premier of a great nation 
argue with me 

KHRUSHCHEV: I am not arguing, I am simply discussing matters 
with you. I am the guest and cannot argue with my host (Laughter, 
applause.) Besides, it was you who started the argument, if that is 
what you call it. (Laughter, applause.) You referred here to the aid 
extended to Soviet people after the Civil War, during the terrible 
famine of 1921-1922, when ARA, the American Relief Administra- 
tion, was set up to aid the starving population. The committee was 
headed by Herbert Hoover. We remember that well, and we thank 

But I feel I must raise a "but" on this score. The "but" is that 
our people remember not only the fact that America helped us 
through ARA and that as a result thousands of people were saved 
from starvation in the Volga Region. They also remember that in 
the hard time after the October Revolution, U.S. troops led by their 
generals landed on Soviet soil to help the White Guards fight our 
Soviet system. And they were not the only ones to land. The Japa- 
nese landed too, the French landed in Odessa and the Germans 
advanced as far as the Soviet Caucasus. The armed forces of bour- 
geois Poland seized Kiev. The British, too, landed their forces to 
fight us. Many European capitalist countries, as well as the United 
States and Japan, sent their troops into an offensive against the 
young Soviet state in an effort to strangle our Revolution. 

You can imagine what our plight was at that time. We were 
mined by the First World War and then by the Civil War. Our 


mines lay idle and our factories were at a standstill We were starv- 
ing, we had nothing to wear and we went barefoot. But what hap- 
pened? In spite of all these terrific difficulties, we beat your troops, 
pushed all invaders into the sea and defeated the White Guards. 

Why do I recall all this? For the simple reason that if you and 
your allies had not landed troops at that time, we would have made 
short shrift of the White Guards and would have had no Civil War, 
no ruin and no famine. And you wouldn't have had to help Soviet 
people through ARA, whose work you have just mentioned 

But even so, even in these circumstances, we thank the Ameri- 
cans for the help they gave us. 

Your armed intervention in Russia was the most unpleasant 
thing that ever occurred in the relations between our two countries, 
for we had never waged war against America until then; our troops 
have never set foot on American soil, while your troops have set 
foot on Soviet soil You see how it is, ladies and gentlemen. Please 
excuse me for these comments. I assure you that I had planned to 
make a very short and unemotional speech. But I cannot be silent 
when someone treads on my pet corn, even if he does so after putting 
a pad on it I cannot put up with it I want to be a worthy partner 
who gives a worthy explanation in defense of his country, his people, 
Ms state and our ideology. 

In conclusion, I want to express once more my heartfelt thanks 
for the invitation to visit your country, and to say that my com- 
panions and I are pleased with our stay in America. But, on the 
other hand, I cannot help voicing my disappointment, voicing some 
surprise, at a certain circumstance. 

We have always regarded the United States as a strong, well- 
organized state whose people have a highly-developed culture. Here 
we are now, in your city, where you have the cream of the artistic 
world film stars, as you say in your country. Also living here are 
industrial workers, ordinary Americans, people of a vast variety of 
trades. We should have liked to meet them, to see how they live, 
and how they work and rest Now just think of it, I, a Soviet man, 
the Prime Minister of the Soviet Union, have come to you as a guesit; 
when I was on my way here, an itinerary was drawn up for me and 
a program of what I could see here and what places I could visit It 
was planned, among other things, that I would visit Disneyland. But 
I have just been told that I cannot go to Disneyland (Laughter.) 
Why not? I asked Is it by any chance because you now have rocket- 
launching pads there? (Laughter.) "No," they tell me, "you can't go 


there because" just listen to this! "The American authorities can- 
not guarantee your safety if you go there," 

What is it? Has cholera or plague broken out there that I might 
catch? (Laughter.) Or has Disneyland been seized by bandits who 
might destroy me? But your policemen are such strong men, they 
could lift a bull by the horns. Surely they could deal effectively with 
bandits! Then I said I should like to go to Disneyland just the same 
and see how Americans spend their leisure. (Applause.) "Do as you 
like," they answered me, "but in that case we cannot guarantee your 
safety." What was I to do go and commit suicide? (Laughter.) This 
is the situation I, your guest, find myself in! It is more than I can 
understand. I won't know how to explain it to my people. Come to 
our country if you like, we will go with anyone, you may walk in our 
streets and parks, and I guarantee that a foreign guest will hear 
nothing from Soviet people but words of respect and welcome. What 
am I to say to the organizers of my U.S. tour? I thought you had a 
well-organized household. Putting me in a closed car and stewing 
me in the sun is not the right way to guarantee my safety. I thought 
I could walk freely in your country and meet Americans. But I am 
told if s impossible. This development causes me bitter regret and I 
cannot but express my disappointment. 

You might say, "What a restless guest" But I keep to the 
Russian maxim, ''Break bread with me, but speak your mind." And 
that should in no way affect our friendly relations. 

Please forgive me for speaking somewhat vehemently or heat- 
edly. But the temperature here is to blame for it, to some extent. 
(Laughter.) Besides, Mr. Skouras had warmed me up to it. (Laugh- 
ter, applause.) Please forgive me if I have said anything not quite 
pleasing to your ear, if I have let slip anything that has jarred you 
a little. The sentiment that guided me in speaking here before you 
was one of friendship and respect for you, for your people and for 
your President, Mr. Eisenhower, 

Thank you for your attention. Thank you, dear friends, thank 
you, Mr. Johnston. (Stormy, prolonged applause.) 




On the evening of September 19 the municipal authorities and the 
Association on International Affairs of Los Angeles held a reception in 
honor of N. S. Khrushchev. 


In his introductory speech Norris Poulson, the Mayor of Los An- 
geles, allowed himself to repeat the already time-and-again-refuted, dis- 
torted version of one of N, S. Khrushchev's speeches and permitted 
himself to make tactless attacks against the guest. This behavior of the 
mayor aroused surprise and disapproval on the part of many present at 
the reception. Later it was condemned in a number of articles in the 
American press and in numerous letters and telegrams from ordinary 

N. S. Khrushchev made a speech at the reception which was re- 
ceived with great attention and often interrupted by applause. 


Allow me to thank you for the hospitality accorded us and for 
the invitation to take part in this gathering. We are pleased to meet 
representatives of the business world and the intellectuals of the 
city of Los Angeles. 

We highly appreciate the opportunity we have been given of 
acquainting ourselves with the life and achievements of the great 
American people. Of course, one must travel a good deal in so vast 
and varied a country as the United States of America to form a more 
or less correct idea of it But they say that if you want to get a true 
idea about the United States you cannot do it without visiting sunny 
California. Today, when we had flown here from the Eastern seaboard 
of the United States and seen Los Angeles (from our car, of course), 
the truth of this opinion was brought home to us. 

In the middle of the last century California won fame for its 
gold mining, and now you figuratively call it the "Golden State." 
But it might be called the "Golden State" even if there had been 
no gold dust in its bowels. Fertile land, a warm and mellow climate 
and landscapes of unique beauty, combined with enormous outlays 
of human labor something which is evident at every turn have 
made California a rich land. Orchards, vineyards and cotton fields 
border upon one of the country's greatest industrial centers, Los 
Angeles. As one sees your city, one is seized by a feeling of respect 
for the enterprise and indomitable will shown by the American 
pioneer settlers and their descendants in combating the forces of 

You people of California, the development of which began much 
later than that of other U.S. areas, should probably understand the 
enthusiasm of Soviet people who are now building new big cities, 
the world's largest hydropower stations and industrial plants in the 
erstwhile wildernesses of Siberia and Kazakhstan, settling and culti- 
vating what were almost uninhabited tracts of land To enable you 
to judge the scale of that effort, I can tell you that in the expanses 


of Siberia and Kazakhstan the Soviet people have in recent years 
developed virgin land whose total area is more than double the entire 
agricultural area of California. To be sure, there is some difference 
in the natural conditions of our two countries. Your pioneers had to 
develop the new lands of California in a scorching sun. Soviet people, 
on the other hand, are developing the riches of Kazakhstan and 
Siberia in a bracing cold of forty degrees below zero Centigrade 
Anybody who finds it hot here may come to our country. He can 
cool himself there. 

I should like to deal briefly at this meeting with the aims of 
our U.S. visit We gratefully accepted the U.S. President's invitation 
to visit your country, to acquaint ourselves with the life of your 
people and to discuss with the President a number of questions that 
are of interest to both our countries. 

There is one question which is equally important to the Soviet 
and American peoples and to all other peoples the question of 
ensuring peace. Everybody realizes that the welfare and prosperity 
of nations and states depend on the course which international rela- 
tions will take in the next few years whether it will be toward 
strengthening peace or whether the war danger will go on increasing. 
What is it that today prevents states from joining their efforts 
and bending them to ease international tension? First of all,- it is 
the atmosphere of the cold war, which weighs heavily on relations 
between countries, in particular, those between the USSR and the 

One can at least understand it when strained relations between 
countries are due to real antagonisms, such as, for example, terri- 
torial disputes or economic claims. But it is a feature of the cold 
war that it involves countries which have no direct antagonisms of 
that kind. 

I have been told that in Los Angeles one can observe an 
atmospheric phenomenon known as "smog," which occurs when in 
bad weather smoke and soot get mixed with fog, with the result 
that breathing becomes difficult. It seems to me that smog is in 
many respects like the cold war. 

The cold war is called "cold 79 because so far it has produced 
no flames, fortunately enough. But it is accumulating a great deal of 
inflammable material that may flare up from any chance spark Hie 
cold war produces more than enough soot. To normalize cooperation 
between states, it is indispensable by joint effort to put an end to 
the cold war and get rid of the prejudices, dislikes and mutual dis- 


trust engendered by it The sooner we end the cold war, the better 
it will be for our peoples and for all mankind 

I should like to believe that the exchange of visits between 
President Eisenhower and myself will contribute toward the cold 
war fading into the past for good, with a warmer climate setting in 
in the relations between countries, a climate similar to that of Cali- 
fornia or to the no-less-blessed climate of the South Coast of the 
Crimea, where I recently spent my vacation. 

As everyone knows, the cold war has given rise to quite a 
number of international problems that are now awaiting solution. 

The most important and pressing problem is that of disarma- 
ment Weighing the negative consequences of the arms race, one does 
not primarily think so much of the human labor, knowledge and 
ingenuity spent to no sensible purpose, nor of the heavy economic 
burden it imposes even on the mightiest powers, as of the danger of 
a military explosion that inevitably attends the arms race. 

There are now many people who realize the extremely grave 
danger arising from the arms race. Indeed, it is an open secret that 
modern means of annihilation have been stockpiled in such quantities 
that they can cause terrible destruction and take an enormous toll 
of human lives. 

Until the recent past long distances and oceans served as natural 
barriers to military conflicts expanding and crossing from continent 
to continent Both the First and the Second World Wars chiefly 
devastated Europe and some regions of Asia and Africa. Today the 
situation is different The distances between the remotest points on 
the globe are now measured in tens of minutes, and the most devas- 
tating means of extermination nuclear weapons can be carried 
to any area of the globe. 

We in the Soviet Union often wonder why, despite our desire 
to reach agreement on disarmament with the Western Powers, we 
are being forced to take part in the arms race. Perhaps the object 
of the arms race is to achieve military superiority over the Soviet 
Union. But whatever you may say, experience shows that the arms 
race cuts both ways. 

The arms race is not benefiting either the Soviet or the American 
people; and no matter how you look at it, it is becoming more and 
more absurd and dangerous. The armaments curve has crept so far 
upward that today the need for an earnest and honest understanding 
on disarmament is greater than ever. 


Those present here probably know that at yesterday's UN 
General Assembly meeting, the Soviet Government put forward 
cardinal proposals on disarmament The gist of these proposals is 
that they call for the general and complete disarmament of states 
within the shortest possible time roughly four years for the de- 
struction of all types of armament, nuclear weapons and missiles 
among them, the disbandment of all armed forces and the abolition 
of war ministries and general staffs. The states would keep only 
small, agreed-upon police (militia) forces intended for the mainte- 
nance of internal order and public safety, and equipped only with 
small arms. 

To appreciate hi full measure the significance of our new pro- 
posals, one should also bear in mind that these proposals remove one 
of the main difficulties that arose in all the previous disarmament 
talks, namely, the problem of control, for, given complete disarma- 
ment, the states will have nothing to conceal from each other and 
control can accordingly be complete and comprehensive. It will be 
control and not military reconnaissance because, in the absence of 
armies, reconnaissance becomes pointless. 

By making these proposals, we want to solve the disarmament 
problem completely and for all time, to put the states in conditions 
in which they will have no material means of waging war. Indeed, 
it is hard to imagine that having neither aircraft, tanks, rockets nor 
any other modern weapons, the Americans and Russians would fight 
each other with, say, forks or table knives. We have invariable faith 
in the good aspirations of man and think that human beings are not 
born to kill each other, but to live in peace and friendship. You know 
that the prime commandment of the Christian religion is, "Thou 
shalt not kill" 

We know, of course, that the idea of disarmament has many 
opponents and that our new proposals will not be to everybody's 
liking. But we should like to believe that these proposals, made in 
good faith and representing the utmost of what a Great Power can 
bring itself to do, especially in the present state of international 
tension, will bring a favorable response from the United States. We 
should also like to hope that as a result of our talks with President 
Eisenhower, the Soviet and U.a Governments will gain a better 
understanding of each other's attitude to the disarmament question 
and will subsequently join their efforts in solving this most formidable 
and most vital problem of our time And surely, if our two countries 
find a common language and arrive at a common opinion on ques- 


tions of disarmament, it will be safe to say that the greater part of 
the difficulties are over and done with. 

Our peoples fought shoulder to shoulder against the common 
enemy in the grim days of the Second World War. And since our 
peoples were together in the most crucial periods of history, what 
surer indication can there be that fundamental and lasting interests 
draw the two countries to cooperation and friendship? 

In this connection, I recall what President Eisenhower said in 
Geneva in 1955. "The American people," he said, "would like to be 
friends with the Soviet peoples. There are no natural differences 
between our peoples or our nations. There are no territorial con- 
flicts or commercial rivalries. Historically, our two countries have 
always been at peace." 

The peoples of the USSR and the USA have much in common. 
Hie meetings I have had convince me that the American people 
value and love peace. I have discovered many other traits that bring 
our two peoples closer together. They are industry, the quest for the 
new, the urge for knowledge and technological progress and, lastly, 
such good human traits as frankness, a sense of humor, good will 
and love of country. 

We are happy, of course, that of late a fresh note has come 
into Soviet-American relations. Mutual visits and meetings of Soviet 
and American statesmen, livelier cultural, scientific and technological 
contacts, exchanges in the fields of agriculture, education, public 
health and exhibitions, and expanding travel are all shoots of the 
new element in Soviet-American relations. Los Angeles is the heart 
of the American cinema. The cinema is the most popular of arts and 
exerts a tremendous influence on the life of society. If it takes the 
right direction, it can serve as an important medium for promoting 
peace and friendship among peoples, for spreading humane ideas and 
good will. But if it takes the wrong direction, it will become a medium 
for whipping up hatred and may seriously prejudice the cause of 
friendship, peace and progress. What ends this powerful art will 
serve depends on the film workers. We attach great importance to 
the development of the cinema in our country, to the making of films 
that educate people in the lofty ideals of international friendship, 
humanism, peace and progress. 

Los Angeles faces East The Pacific washes both the Los 
Angeles waterfront and that of the Soviet city of Vladivostok. In 
meeting representatives of your city, I should like to re-emphasize 


the Soviet Union's readiness to develop all-round contacts and estab- 
lish friendly cooperation with the United States of America 

Strictly speaking, I had expected to conclude my speech with 
this. But the speakers who preceded me raised some points which I 
cannot leave unanswered. (Laughter, applause.) 

I turn to you, Mr. Mayor, my host. You said in your speech 
that we wanted to bury you. You are treating my companions and 
myself to an excellent meal and we thank you for it, but I will speak 
my mind just the same. Is that the custom in your country? 

I want to ask you why you must take up again what I dealt 
with in earlier speeches following my arrival in America. I suppose 
mayors, too, read the press. (Laughter, applause.) In any case, the 
chairmen of city Soviets in our country read the newspapers unfail- 
ingly. If they did not read the press, they might not be elected for 
another term, (Laughter, applause.) 

Ladies and gentlemen, some people don't seem to want to get 
off the hobby-horse of the cold war and the arms race. If they refuse 
to get off it and hang on to the saddle, where will it take them and 
what will they get? If such people want the arms race and war, let 
them stay on their horse. Then everybody will see clearly that there 
can be no question of disarmament On the contrary, the arms race 
will gain in intensity. If you are unwilling to accept disarmament 
and want to continue the arms race, we will have no choice but to 
go on making rockets, which in our country are being turned out by 
the assembly-line method. 

Gentlemen, think well what that may lead to. You know that 
I have come here with good intentions, but it appears that some of 
you would like to reduce the matter to a joke. I repeat that it is 
a question of extremely serious things the question of peace or war, 
the life or death of people. We offer you a hand of friendship. If you 
don't want it, say so. 

(Foice: "We want it!") 

KHRUSHCHEV: In that case we must show a sensible approach 
to the question under discussion. We mustn't play with words. We 
hold much too important posts, and playing with words may have 
most deplorable consequences for our peoples. (Prolonged applause.) 

Ladies and gentlemen, since your Mayor doesn't seem to have 
read what I said in Washington, I should like to make it clear once 
more what I said there. 


I have already said that the words "We will bury capitalism* 
should not be taken literally, as is done by ordinary gravediggers 
who carry a spade and dig graves and bury the dead. What I had 
in mind was the outlook for the development of human society. 
Socialism will inevitably succeed capitalism. According to our doc- 
trine, it will be so and according to yours, it won't History will decide 
which is right and which is wrong. I say it again I've almost worn 
my tongue thin repeating it you may live under capitalism and we 
will live under socialism and build communism. The one whose 
system proves better will win. We will not bury you, nor will you 
bury us. Carry on to your hearts* content, and God be with you. 

Ladies and gentlemen, it was not to have a cup of tea or, say, 
a glass of brandy that your President invited me to this country. 
I have companions with whom I could do that back home if I felt like 
it, without having to fly thousands of kilometers. The President, too, 
could do it at his home, and without me. It is clear to me, of course, 
that the U.S. President will not accept the communist point of view 
with regard to the development of human society, and I think the 
President, too, doesn't expect to convert me to capitalism. (Anima- 

Why has President Eisenhower invited me to the United States? 
It was wisdom that evidently prompted him to do so in order to 
find contact with the Soviet Union and reach an understanding to 
live in peace. We know that you don't like Communists. But we are 
neighbors. The Pacific separates us, but it also connects our coun- 
tries. The question today is whether there is to be peace between our 
countries or whether there is to be war. I want to tell you frankly that 
I am deeply concerned about the persistence, the deliberate misrep- 
resentation of the ideas expressed by me on the part of some of your 
spokesmen, who seek to maintain the state of cold war. 

Make your choice: Shall we advance together to peace, or shall 
we continue the cold war and the arms race? I have not come to 
plead with you. We are no less strong than you. I have already made 
many speeches in the United States but have not once resorted to 
the word "arms," to say nothing of "missiles." And if I have spoken 
about it today, you must understand that I had no choice. 

Perhaps some people would like to create the impression that we 
have come here as poor relations and beg you for peace as for alms. 
But don't fall into error. All peoples want peace. If armaments yield 
profits to your monopolies, if it is suggested that we should compete 


in arms production and not in peaceful pursuits, then it is a terrible 
course to steer! Think where that will get us, and make your choice. 
The point is this: Either our meeting with President Eisenhower will 
result in the relaxation of tension, in the termination of the cold war, 
or we will part without achieving the results desired 

This visit by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the 
Soviet Union is the first visit made to the United States by a head 
of our state in the history of our countries. Nevertheless, we* lived. 
If you do not accept our idea of working for peace, for the promo- 
tion of friendly relations between our countries, perhaps we had 
better go home and then let everyone know who really wants peace 
and friendship and who obstructs them. 

You may well say that you will carry on as you have done so 
far. But it should be clear to anyone that it is better to live in peace 
and friendship than to live with rockets trained on each other, that 
it is better to live in a pure atmosphere in which you can sleep 
peacefully, secure in the knowledge that you will have peace today 
and tomorrow, that it will be permanent and durable. (Applause.) 

When I hear such talk I wonder sometimes whether some peo- 
ple have hit on the idea of inviting Khrushchev to the United States 
to give him a "rubbing-down," to show him the strength and might 
of the United States of America, so that his knees would bend a bit, 
so to speak. If that is what those gentlemen expect, they are sorely 
mistaken. It won't take us long to fiy home from here. We took about 
12 hours to fly here, and I suppose we can make the homeward trip 
in about 10 hours. What do you think, Comrade Tupolev? 
A. A. TUPOLEV*: Yes, Nikita Sergeyevich, we can. 
KHRUSHCHEV: Meet the son of Academician Tupolev, our fa- 
mous aircraft designer. 

I think we will be more sensible and find a common language. 
We should all strive for peace. And now I want to answer Mr. Lodge 
about his proposal to exchange books. Today, on our flight here, and 
while exchanging opinions, he suggested exchanging books on the 
history of our states, 

I can say in this connection, let us not hide our identities. You 
represent the capitalist world and we, the socialist world. That being 
so, not all of our literature suits you, just as not all of your literature 
suits us. Let us not beat about the bush. 

We are for exchanging cultural values, provided these exchanges 
serve to improve our relations, not to worsen them. When dealing 

* Eminent Soviet airplane designer. 


Khrushchev is seen here at the San Luis Obispo sta- 
tion on the way from Los Angeles to San Francisco. 


with a partner, we should adhere to the right principle. If you palm 
off some bad goods on him today, he will stop buying them from you. 
The rule we stick to is this: You offer us your "merchandise," we 
choose and buy what we need. We offer you something in turn, and 
you buy what you like. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy 
it. (Laughter, applause.) 

In the Ukraine we have a popular saying (there are probably 
some Ukrainians here, too) : "Your eyes saw what you were buying, 
so now eat it even if they pop out** (Laughter.) 

However, I agree to Mr. Lodge's proposal But if in writing 
your history you advertise your ideology between the lines, you must 
bear in mind that Russians, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Uzbeks in 
short, all the peoples of the Soviet Union are now educated, they 
know what is what and will not read any such books of yours. Our 
people will only buy what suits them, and we will sell you what suits 
you. We want to be good partners in exchanging cultural merchan- 
dise. (Applause.) 

This is not an objection to Mr. Lodge. I repeat that I agree to 
his proposal I am only saying on what terms such a deal can be 
concluded, so that you will not say later that Khrushchev heard 
you and agreed, and then refused to accept your merchandise. If 
the merchandise is good, we will take it; and if it isn't, we wont 
(Animation t applause.) 

Thank you for your attention. I wish you every success and 
happiness. ( Stormy applause.) 


IN SAN FRANCISCO September 20-21 

N. S. Khrushchev and his party arrived in San Francisco on the 
evening of September 20. A welcoming address was delivered at the 
railway station by Mayor Christopher. Replying to the greetings, N. S. 
Khrushchev said: 


I am very glad to have arrived in your remarkable city of San 
Francisco which is so famous. On approaching your city I saw places 
resembling the southern parts of our country. 

I thank you, Mr. Mayor, for the good and kind wishes and for 
the promise of hospitality to me and my party in San Francisco. 

As regards the questions which the Mayor mentioned, concern- 
ing our ideological views and your attitude toward them, I must say 
that I never evaded political arguments, to be exact, talks. If you 
wish, I am prepared to participate in controversy. I, of course, will 
defend my positions and show the good aspects of our system. You 
will have the opportunity of showing your good aspects. Please de- 
fend your positions in the discussion and I will defend mine. Talks 
and discussions on political subjects, if wisely approached, cannot 
spoil our relations or aggravate them; on the contrary, they could 
facilitate our rapprochement if every one will be tolerant toward the 
other side. 

If we are to avoid talks and discussions on political subjects 
when we meet with you, then it would be like a meeting of two 
dumb people who only mumble instead of talking. This is not natural 
for normal people. 

I consider that we should adhere to one rule, that these talks 
and discussions should not deepen our differences on the basic ques- 
tion, that of the necessity of having gpod already not mentioning 
friendly relations between us so as to ensure peace between our 
countries and between the peoples of all countries. 

I express my thanks for the welcome to you, Mr. Mayor, to all 
the inhabitants of San Francisco who properly understand my visit 
and who correctly consider that I have come here in order to convey 
to you greetings from our people, wishes of friendship and coopera- 
tion between our countries. (Applause.) 



N. S. Khrushchev, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the 
USSR, met with a group of U.S. trade-union leaders in San Fran- 
cisco on September 20. The meeting took place on the initiative of 
some leaders of the American Federation of Labor-Congress of 
Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). 

The Americans present at the meeting were James B. Carey, 
Vice-President of the AFL-CIO (President of the International Union 
of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers); Walter P. Reuther, 
Vice-President of the AFL-CIO (President of the United Automo- 
bile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers); O. A. Knight 
(President of the International Union of Oil, Chemical and Atomic 
Workers); Karl F. Feller (President of the United Brewery Work- 
ers); Emil Rieve (Chairman of the Executive Council of the Textile 
Workers Union); Joseph Cuiran (President of the National Mari- 
time Union); Paul L. Phillips (President of the United Papermakers 
and Paperworkers); George L. P. Weaver, (Union of Electrical Work- 
ers) and Victor G. Reuther (United Automobile, Aircraft and Agri- 
cultural Implement Workers). 

Some questions about the international situation and Soviet- 
American relations were brought up during the discussion, which 
lasted over three hours and occasionally became sharp. 

The U.S. press carried numerous contradictory reports of the 

The source of information on what happened at the meeting 
was a news conference which the U.S. union leaders called late in the 
evening, immediately after parting with N. S. Khrushchev. It appears 
from the press reports that Walter Reuther, Vice-President of the 
AFL-CIO, made extraordinary statements at the news conference, 
about the remarks of the head of the Soviet Government, attributing 
to him things which he had not said or done. The news confer- 
ence, according to the San Francisco Examiner, ended in chaos. Ac- 
cording to the same newspaper, two of the union leaders present at 
the meeting Rieve, President of the Textile Workers Union, and 
Curran, President of the National Maritime Union, told reporters 
that a considerable part of Reuther's statements about what had 
happened was a lot of nonsense. 

On September 22 the New York Times published what it con- 
sidered to be a complete transcript of the discussion. That transcript 
shows, however, that those who made it reported the discussion 


arbitrarily. They were apparently afraid to convey to the reader the 
actual statements made by the head of the Soviet Government 

To set the record straight, the Press Group of the Chairman of the 
Council of Ministers of the USSR published the following account 
of the discussion in question, the main points of which have been 
withheld from the public or distorted in the tendentious accounts 
given by some U.S. newspapers: 

At the very beginning of the discussion, James Carey and 
Walter Reuther said that they and their colleagues were greatly 
interested in a frank exchange of views on major international prob- 
lems of a pressing character. Carey stressed that they were interested 
in the new Soviet proposals for general and complete disarmament 
submitted by N. S. Khrushchev to the United Nations. He said that 
the American workers were concerned about the fact that enormnnc 

Khrushchev greets citizens of San Luis Obispo on the way from Los Angeles to San Fr 

sums are being spent on armaments. Reuther, for his part, said that 
the most urgent problem was that of how to preserve peace. Carey 
and others asked N. S, Khrushchev to tell them about the new Soviet 
disarmament proposals. But, in effect, they did not wait to hear the 
reply and went on to ask other questions in particular, about eco- 
nomic aid to underdeveloped countries. 

Answering these questions, N. S. Khrushchev pointed out that 
the proposals for general and complete disarmament submitted by 
the Soviet Government to the UN, which envisage the allocation of 
a certain percentage of the funds saved on arms reduction, could be 
instrumental in aiding underdeveloped countries. 

"But we aren't waiting till an agreement is reached on disarma- 
ment," N. S. Khrushchev said. "We are giving the underdeveloped 
countries substantial economic aid right now. On the one hand, we 

help them through the UN with funds, medical supplies and food. 
On the other hand, we help them on a bilateral basis. In India we 
are helping the government to build a steel mill, chemical and ma- 
chine-building plants, and pharmaceutical factories. We grant the 
Indian Government credits; provide it with blueprints for industrial 
plants; send our specialists to help the Indians; and train engineers, 
technicians and skilled workers for plants under construction. We also 
render large-scale assistance to the Arab countries and countries 
in Africa. It is well known that the Soviet Union is extending 
friendly assistance to Cambodia, Burma, Ceylon, Yemen, Ethiopia 
and other countries.** 

Reuther interrupted N. S. Khrushchev and tried to discredit the 
Soviet Union's policy of assistance to economically underdeveloped 
countries. He went so far as to accuse the Soviet Union of using aid 
to underdeveloped countries for selfish purposes, for purposes of 
the cold war. 

In repulsing that attack, N. S. Khrushchev said: "You are 
shooting your shafts in the wrong direction. The Soviet Union has 
never exploited anyone, nor is it exploiting anyone now. It helps 
underdeveloped countries as a friend, without any political strings 
attached For example, we shipped thousands of tons of grain to 
Yemen. Yet its system is not socialist. It is a kingdom. Do you call 
that aid for selfish purposes? Just what selfish aims do we achieve 
thereby? We don't make any profit on that. We act as friends. But 
look at what the imperialists are doing. The U.S. monopolies are ex- 
ploiting the riches of the underdeveloped countries and making big 
profits. Britain, France and other capitalist countries are doing like- 
wise. Why cannot those countries expand their help to the under- 
developed countries out of the profits they derive in that way? The 
Soviet Government has put forward and submitted to the UN a 
proposal to that effect The Soviet Union trades with all countries 
on a basis of mutual advantage." 

Unable to counter N. S. Khrushchev's arguments in any way, 
Reuther suddenly shouted: "You are exploiting the people of East 
Germany!" This statement drew smiles even from Reuther's col- 

N. S. Khrushchev said: 

"Where did you see that dream? Calm yourself, you have the 
shivers. Who empowered you to speak on behalf of the German 
people? Why do you keep trying to speak for other peoples? You 
are pampered by the fact that many countries depend on the United 


States and are compelled to seek your aid. But the socialist countries 
stand firmly on their own feet. We don't take off our hats to you. 
The Soviet ruble has never bowed, is not bowing now and will never 
bow to the dollar." 

The disarmament problem came up next. Reuther and some 
other trade-union leaders repeated the assertions of the commercial 
press to the effect that the Soviet plan for general and complete 
disarmament had been put forward merely for propaganda purposes 
and that the USSR spent as much on armaments as the USA, that 
is, 40 billion dollars a year. 

"First of all," N. S. Khrushchev replied, "calculated in your cur- 
rency, we spend 25 billion on defense and not 40 billion. In the 
second place, your statement that the Soviet proposals are propa- 
ganda makes me, a former miner, feel sorry for you. They say you 
were born in a working-class environment, but you talk like a spokes- 
man for the capitalists. I can understand it when Hearst prints things 
like that But when an American trade-union leader repeats them, 
I think bitterly of how thoroughly the monopolists have corrupted 

However, Reuther continued to repeat the allegations of reac- 
tionary propaganda, which distort the Soviet proposals. Among other 
things, he asserted that the Soviet disarmament plan did not envisage 
the establishment of control. 

"Why is it," N. S. Khrushchev said, "that you know Dulles' 
arguments so well and are so ignorant of the Soviet stand? We are 
for all-embracing control, but how should it be organized? The United 
States proposes setting up control first and talking of disarmament 
afterward. At a time when the U.S. has encircled us with its military 
bases, control without disarmament can only mean one thing mili- 
tary reconnaissance. What we propose, however, is to organize control 
by stages, accordingly as disarmament is carried out" 

"But we propose organizing an equal measure of control for the 
USA and the Soviet Union," Reuther said. 

"No, you don't, because those aren't equal terms,'* N. S. Khrush- 
chev replied. "U.S. military bases surround our frontiers, while we 
have no bases on the American continent. How would you feel if 
there were Soviet military bases in Mexico and Canada?** 

"Who is keeping you from having them?" said Victor Reuther, 
brother of the Vice-President of the AFL-CIO. "Set them up." 

(This observation, provocative in effect, brought indignant pro- 
tests from the entire assembly.) 


"How can you, a spokesman for the working class, bring yourself 
to talk like that!" N. S. Khrushchev said to Victor Reuther. 

Walter Reuther made a clumsy attempt to change the subject, 
saying that it was late and that the Prime Minister was "tired." 

N. S. Khrushchev said that it was impossible to discuss things 
by jumping from one question to another like fleas. "Is it an earnest 
discussion you want or is it something else?" he asked. "You side- 
stepped one question, then another, and are now jumping to a third. 
Disarmament is the question of questions. We want you to get us 
right, so I must set out our stand in detail" 

Nevertheless, Walter Reuther hastened to give the floor to 
Rieve for fresh questions. The latter raised several questions about 
the role of state ownership in the capitalist and socialist countries, 
about democracy and -dictatorship, control of the press and radio, 
exchange of information, and so on. He, too, repeated the attacks 
which hostile propaganda usually makes on the Soviet Union and 
the other socialist countries. 

It was obvious from the manner in which Rieve put his ques- 
tions that he had an exceedingly vague, and in many cases false, 
notion of Soviet realities. 

Walter Reuther, who watched his colleague put questions ac- 
cording to the notes that lay in front of him, prompted Rieve to be 
sure to inquire about the one-party system. But Rieve ignored that 

N. S. Khrushchev said that the questions raised by Rieve were 
elementary and that in the Soviet Union they were studied in 
political study groups of the elementary type. 

Then Walter Reuther, in an obvious effort to give the discus- 
sion a sharper turn, put an additional question. "Does the system of 
state ownership necessitate dictatorship which rules out democracy?" 
he asked. 

While, in answering Rieve, N. S. Khrushchev described the dif- 
ference between state ownership in the socialist countries, where the 
means of production belong to the entire people, and state ownership 
in the capitalist countries, where nationalization of the means of 
production leaves them in the hands of the bourgeoisie, the ruling 
class, Mr. Reuther suddenly said that "the highest degree of socialism 
has been achieved in Israel," where, so he said, 60 per cent of indus- 
try belongs to the trade unions. 

Asked who in that case was in power in Israel, Mr. Reuther 
failed to give a direct reply. 

N. S. Khrushchev explained that the fundamental issue in char- 


acterizing a particular social system is that of state power, of whom 
it belongs to whether the working class, working people in general, 
or the exploiting classes. If state power is held by the people, the 
means of production are socialist, public property. Not so when 
nationalization of the means of production is carried out under con- 
ditions where power belongs to the capitalists. N. S. Khrushchev said 
that the Communists are proponents of the dictatorship of the work- 
ing class and that the tasks of socialist construction can only be 
effectively carried out if state power passes into the hands of the 
working people. Working-class dictatorship, far from ruling out 
democracy, provides every condition for the development of genuine 
democracy. It is in itself the highest form of democracy. 

Walter Reuther said again that the Prime Minister was prob- 
ably "tired" and that they must hurry and ask other questions. This 
brought the following sarcastic comment from N. S. Khrushchev: 
"Will you have strength enough to vie with me? Fm in good form. 
I will not tire of fighting for the working-class cause as long as I live. 
Let us have a business-like talk if you want it Our time isn't limited. 1 * 

Joseph Curran, President of the National Maritime Union, said 
he wanted to ask what he called a question from everyday life. "I 
was in the Soviet Union in the thirties," he said, "when we delivered 
equipment purchased by you. We are pleased with the technical pro- 
gress you have made. I should like to know whether the collective 
bargaining system will develop as technology makes progress in your 
industry, and whether the workers will have the right to strike. How 
do trade unions defend the interests of the working people?*' 

"I see what you mean," N. S. Khrushchev said. "I'm glad that 
you have the class instinct in dealing with questions of trade-union 
activity. But it seems that you have no idea at all of conditions in a 
socialist state, of the position of the working class there or of the 
role of the trade unions. You measure everything with the yardstick 
you are accustomed to in the United States." 

Seeing that Curran took an interest in the explanation which 
the head of the Soviet Government was giving, Victor Reuther began 
talking about the "personality cult." 

Curran cut him short. "Why do you butt in!" he said 

N. S. Khrushchev went on, speaking to Curran: 

"I like your question because it is so forthright, and I will give 
you a forthright answer. We had strikes in the first few years after 
the October Revolution. I myself used to go to the striking workers 
to talk to them. Nowadays our workers do not strike. Why? You'll 


find the answer to that question if you recall certain facts. In what 
capitalist country would the government draw up plans to raise 
working-class living standards without the workers exerting pressure 
on it? It is more than one can imagine that in the capitalist countries 
wages would be raised while the working day was reduced, without 
the workers striking to achieve it. But in the Soviet Union this matter 
is being handled as a priority task. The government, the workers and 
the trade unions are cooperating closely in the matter of increasing 
wages further while reducing working hours. All we need is to lay the 
economic groundwork for it. Speaking tentatively, I think that if 
our proposal for general and complete disarmament were accepted, 
we could begin the transition to a six-hour working day and higher 
wages much earlier than 1964, the year envisaged in the seven-year 
plan. Soviet workers are always abreast of their country's economic 
development and know well whether or not there are, at any given 
moment, practical possibilities for a further rise in wages." 

Curran thanked N. S. Khrushchev for his answer. 

Walter Reuther made a fresh attempt to sharpen the discus- 
sion by alleging that the Soviet trade unions were "an extension of 
the government," and wanted to know why the Soviet trade unions 
did not come out against the Party. Some of the unionists asked for 
the floor but Reuther would not listen, and tried to speak for all 
of them. 

"You are like a nightingale," N. S. Khrushchev said, smiling. 
"It closes its eyes when it sings, and sees nothing and hears nobody 
but itself." The audience burst out laughing and Mr. Reuther flushed. 
Nevertheless, he kept harping on his point, posing as a defender of 
Soviet workers. 

"Why do you stick your nose into other people's plans?" N. S. 
Khrushchev asked. "The Soviet workers settle their problems by 
themselves, and get along without outside interference. There will 
be no real talk as long as you keep trying to lecture others." 

"There is such a thing as international working-class solidarity," 
Reuther declared pompously. 

"You dare talk about international solidarity after you've split 
the World Federation of Trade Unions and opposed your trade 
unions to those of most countries of the world," N. S. Khrushchev 

Reuther made no answer. He hastened to pass to another ques- 
tion as he did each time that he had nothing to say, and gave the 
floor to Knight. 


Knight asked two questions. He casually raised the question of 
so-called free elections in Germany. His utterances on the so-called 
"Hungarian question" were in the same vein. 

"Do you know anything about the German Democratic Repub- 
lic?" N. S. Khrushchev asked him. "Have you ever been there? I 
have been there more than once and I can tell you that the German 
Democratic Republic is built on a most democratic foundation. All 
matters there are decided by a democratically elected government. 
Private ownership of the means of production has been abolished 
there and state power belongs to the working people. The working 
class of the German Democratic Republic is headed by the Socialist 
Unity Party of Germany, a party devoted to the interests of the work- 
ing class. There are also other democratic parties there. As regards 
elections in Germany, that is an internal affair of the Germans them- 
selves, as I have said repeatedly. Let them do as they decide between 
themselves. No one has a right to interfere in their internal affairs." 

N. S. Khrushchev then firmly repelled attempts to pull the 
so-called Hungarian question out of the bag again. 

During the discussion of this question Mr. Reuther unwittingly 
betrayed shocking ignorance. He began to "defend" Comrade Janos 
Kadar as if Kadar were a bourgeois nationalist It was not until his 
colleagues burst out laughing, intimating that he meant Imre Nagy, 
that Reuther began to correct himself awkwardly. 

Commenting on Reuther's attitude in "defending" the Hungarian 
people, N. S. Khrushchev said: 

"The Hungarian People's Republic has its own Constitution, its 
legislation and its lawful government, elected by democratic pro- 
cedure. It is developing freely, and has made considerable progress 
in socialist constructioa What happened in Hungary in 1956? There 
was a revolt of anti-popular elements there, who were dissatisfied 
with the working people's rule. The Hungarian counterrevolution, 
instigated by international reactionary forces, sought to overthrow 
the socialist system. In doing so, the conspirators used arms received 
from the West. They acted on instructions also coming from the 
West Having seized power in Budapest for a few days, the counter- 
revolutionaries began to commit outrages, to shoot and otherwise 
exterminate honest people. At that crucial moment, the Hungarian 
Revolutionary Government headed by Janos Kadar asked for our 
aid. We complied with that request, and we are proud of it If we 
had not come to the aid of the people's government headed by Janos 
Kadar, the fascists might have seized power in Hungary. By render- 


ing the Hungarian people fraternal assistance in their struggle against 
the fascist rebels, we did our international duty." 

Phillips proposed passing to a fresh subject, and echoed the 
claims repeatedly made by capitalist spokesmen in interviews with 
N. SL Khrushchev in the United States regarding unhampered circu- 
lation of reactionary literature and anti-Soviet information in the 

"What is your favorite dish?" N. S. Khrushchev asked Phillips. 
"Roast beef," Phillips replied. 

"And I prefer borshch," N. S. Khrushchev said. "You don't eat 
it, but Fm very fond of it You are for capitalism and I am for 
socialism. Why am I not answering your question in greater detail? 
For the simple reason that I have been asked that question many 
times here and have answered it each time. It seems that you don't 
like my reply and wish to hear something different But there's noth- 
ing to be done about it you and we have different notions of free- 
dom. When we were in Hollywood they danced the cancan for us. 
The girls who dance it have to pull up their skirts and show their 
backsides. They are good honest actresses but have to perform that 
dance. They are compelled to adapt themselves to the tastes of 
depraved people. People in your country will go to see it, but Soviet 
people would scorn such a spectacle. It is pornographic. It is the 
culture of surfeited and depraved people. Showing that sort of films 
is called freedom in this country. Such 'freedom' doesn't suit us. You 
seem to like the 'freedom' of looking at backsides. But we prefer the 
freedom to think, to exercise our mental faculties, the freedom of 
creative progress." 

"Do you want such films to be banned?" Phillips asked 
"I think there should be such a law," N. S. Khrushchev replied, 
"a moral law. 7 * 

"I'm free to see or not to see such films," Carey said. 
"But your children see things like that!" 
"I have no children." 

"But other people have. Good children, who live on earth," 
N. S. Khrushchev remarked. "And you and we should protect them 
from bad influences spread under the guise of 'free cultural ex- 
change/ " 

Some of the unionists then contended that the Soviet Union 
was reluctant for some reason to expand Soviet-American cultural 
relations. N. S. Khrushchev refuted that false assertioa He stressed 
that in reality it was the American side which was stalling, and 


Citizens of San Francisco welcoming Khrushchev. 

suggested that G. A. Zhukov, Chairman of the State Committee f< 
Cultural Relations, who was present, be asked to inform them on tJ 
matter. But the U.S. trade-union leaders avoided that. 

"Well read about it in the papers," one of them said 
Speaking of exchanges of information, N. S. Khrushchev pointe 
out that Soviet people are for exchanging truthful information, sue 
as would make for a durable peace and closer relations betwee 
peoples. P. A. Satyukov, Editor-in-Chief of Pravda, who was presei 
at the discussion, pointed out that Pravda had published in full tl 
speeches made at the Washington conference on unemploymei 
called by U.S. trade unions, without changing a single word in thei 
while the American newspapers for some reason had not carric 
them, describing them as "Red propaganda" 

"You and we have different views regarding exchanges of infc 
mation and a number of other matters," N. S. Khrushchev said "B 
that doesn't mean we cannot find a common language on problem 
that are of interest to the peoples of our countries. We say to yoi 
*Rise higher, try to take a broader view of events. Don't look ; 
things from the tower you've built for yourselves. Come to 01 
country, see how Soviet workers live and work, how our trade unio: 
function, how they defend the workers' interests. You and we a 


proach things differently; we are advancing to communism along the 
path we have chosen, while you want to bolster capitalism.' In other 
words, our attitudes are different Let us recognize this indisputable 
fact. But couldn't we try and find common ground for businesslike 
cooperation? We think we could. The whole working class needs such 
cooperation in the struggle for its fundamental interests, for peace. 

**We did not come to this meeting to aggravate relations they 
are bad enough as it is," N. S. Khrushchev remarked. "If we fling 
accusations at each other, it won't do the working class any good 
Let's be reasonable, let's not bring up questions which separate us. 
Let's pool our efforts in the struggle for world peace." 

But Feller asked another question in the cold war spirit Read- 
ing from a sheet, he repeated the false propaganda that the workers 
are oppressed in the socialist countries and have to escape abroad 

A. I. Adzhubei, Editor-in-Chief of Izvestia, who was also present, 
pointed out that Feller was repeating word for word what was 
printed in that day's New York Times. 

"Think of what you are doing," N. S. Khrushchev said, "You 
would repeat articles published in the bourgeois press, and I should 
answer you. Start reading the proletarian press and then you will 
see what's what sooner." 

N. S. Khrushchev observed that Weaver, a Negro present at the 
discussion, had made several attempts to ask a question but that 
Reuther persisted in ignoring him for some reason. 

This isn't a democratic way of holding a discussion," N. S. 
Khjushchev said "Let the black man speak It's a shame, really. You 
stiM have places in this country which Negroes aren't allowed to 

Weaver said that the U.S. trade unions were fighting against 
racial discrimination and that they accorded him the honor of rep- 
resenting the U.S. labor movement at some international conferences. 
Two weeks ago, he said, he had attended a conference of the World 
Federation of United Nations Associations in Geneva. 

At the conference, Weaver noted with satisfaction, the U.S. and 
Soviet delegations had cooperated closely. They had drafted a joint 
resolution aimed at ending the cold war, and it had been carried 
Weaver pointed out, however, that the U.S. delegation and the 
delegations of the socialist countries had differed on many jpoints 
and had had sharp clashes over them. 

He asked N. S. Khrushchev how a start should be made and 
how common ground could, be found for cooperatioa "If s important 


for our people to have answers to the questions asked here tonight, 
Weaver said. 

"I know that your trade unions are doing a good deal for th 
Negroes to become equal citizens of the USA t " N. S. Khrushche* 
replied. "As regards the questions on which there is no agreemen 
between your trade unions and those of the socialist countries, yoi 
know that you and we differ in our approach to many social phenc 
mena, and appraise them differently. 

"In our opinion, trade unions should have more frequent con 
tacts. Everything cannot be settled overnight, of course. But shouli 
cooperation between trade unions begin to develop and strengthen 
on specific points, if only minor ones to begin with, the two countrie 
will in the end come to join efforts. You cannot gain an understand 
ing of the attitude of our trade unions overnight, just as our trad 
unionists cannot gain overnight an understanding of all that you hav< 
That is why both you and we should take a good look at each othei 
examine each other's activities and get to know them better, W 
may have disputes and disagreements. But if you and we want t 
promote peace and improve the living conditions of workers, c 
working people, why aggravate relations? After all, that would benefi 
none but our common enemies. 

"Do you want our socialist system changed? I hope not. We, fc 
our part, don't want to interfere in your internal affairs and will nc 
do it won't try to bring about a change in the system you have, W 
have said in the past and say now: 'Let us be more tolerant towar 
each other. Though we differ with you on many questions, we hav 
a common cause for the sake of which we should join our effort 
It is the struggle for peace. The peoples want peace, and are fightin 
for it' 

"As for specific questions of the trade-union movement, I mui 
admit that I've never worked in tb^t field and am no expert, bi 
we have experienced trade unionists. Why don't you contact them 
They will not try to make Communists out of you and I think thi 
you, too, will not make supporters of capitalism out of them. But a 
exchange of views between you and them would, no doubt, be useful 

James Carey, Vice-President of the AFL-CIO, who spoke at tl 
close of the discussion, thanked N. S. Khrushchev for the meetin 

"Thank you," he said, "for giving us so much df your tim 
Good-bye and good luck. Let's work together for peace, for the goc 
of man.'* 

The meeting ended in a friendly atmosphere. In parting, tl 


union leaders thanked the head of the Soviet Government again and 
again for the meeting. 

In view of the foregoing, it was really surprising that a news 
conference was held right after the meeting, at which Mr. Reuther 
did not hesitate in the opinion of the Soviet press group grossly to 
distort the substance of the discussion and attack the man whom he 
and his colleagues had just received as a guest of honor. Mr. Reuther 
went so far as to allege that N. S. Khrushchev had in the course of 
the discussion "pounded the table and shouted, 'I am the dictator 
of the working class.*" 

This sort of statement is plainly intended for people who 
have no idea whatever of the Soviet Union or its leaders. It is not 
mere chance that many bourgeois correspondents asked N. S. Khrush- 
chev to comment on the utterly incredible statement which Mr. 
Reuther had made about the meeting. 

"I don't know whether Mr. Reuther actually said that or whether 
it was attributed to him by unscrupulous journalists," N. S. Khrush- 
chev replied "Did he really say that?" 

Journalists who had attended the news conference confirmed 
that Mr. Reuther had made the statement in question. Then N. S. 
Khrushchev said: 

"If Mr. Reuther made such a statement, he acted dishonestly. 
It's a lie. I cannot respect a man who resorts to such methods. In 
our interview, we spoke of the dictatorship of the working class and 
not any personal dictatorship. Marxism-Leninism maintains that when 
power passes into the hands of the working class, it has to establish 
a dictatorship of its own to suppress the resistance of the overthrown 
exploiting classes. The forms of working-class dictatorship may vary 
in different countries. If the deposed class puts up no resistance to 
the new that is born in the course of the historical development of 
society, as a result of revolution, the working class has no need to 
use forcible means of suppression. But if the exploiters try to turn 
back the wheel of history, to prevent the people from taking power, 
if they try to strangle the revolution, then the working class, working 
people in general, must, in the name of their vital interests, use 
means of suppression to maintain their social gains and to defend 
the vital interests of the working masses, of the entire people." 

N. S. Khrushchev stressed that as it advances to communism 
the Soviet Union is carrying out more and more extensive measures 
leading to the withering away of the state. "We have already carried 
out a number of far-reaching measures in that field," he said. "We 


are reducing our armed forces and militia, and cutting the number 
of state security workers. An increasing number of functions involved 
in the maintenance of law and order and in state administration are 
being transferred to public organizations." 

What is the outcome of the interview between the U.S. union 
leaders and the head of the Soviet Government? 

The very fact that the interview took place suggests that the 
political situation in the USA is taking a turn for the better. However 
strong anti-Soviet sentiment may be with some U.S. trade-union 
leaders, the growing urge of the American people for better U.S.- 
Soviet relations and for a durable peace is gaining the upper hand. 

It will be recalled that so far the U.S. trade-union leadership 
has persisted in avoiding all contacts with the Soviet Union. Many 
speeches made by Meany, President of the AFL-CIO, hardly differed 
in substance from speeches made by reactionary-minded leaders of 
U.S. imperialism. Speaking at a trade-union congress in San Francisco 
as recently as September 21, 1959, Meany violently attacked the 
Soviet Union and the Soviet Government in the cold war spirit 
This attitude of Meany's and his associates' is at variance with the 
sentiments of ordinary Americans, who want a durable peace and 
friendly relations between the USA and the Soviet Union. 

This must have been the reason why the group of AFL-CIO 
leaders found it necessary to invite N. S. Khrushchev, head of the 
Soviet Government, to an interview to discuss some important prob- 
lems of international life and Soviet-American relations. 

It is reasonable to believe that that interview may serve as a 
good start and will help pave the way for the necessary contacts 
between American and Soviet trade unions. 

Those contacts are indispensable and could be most fruitful 
in the struggle for the common cause of promoting universal peace. 

As regards those who persist, trying to stay on the cold war 
bandwagon, they are merely exposing their true colors before the 
eyes of the working people of the world. 

The vital interests of the working class call for unity in the 
struggle for peace. "Though we differ with you on many questions/* 
N. S. Khrushchev said in his conversation with the U.S* trade union- 
ists, "we have a common cause for the sake of which we should 
join our efforts. It is the struggle for peace." 

It is deplorable that reactionary U.S. trade-union leaders are 
trying to aggravate matters at a time when there are signs of better 


relations between the Soviet Union and the United States, and of 
a more wholesome mternatkmal climate. 

No matter how hard reactionary-minded U.S. trade-union lead- 
ers try to conceal the appeal to unity voiced by the head of the 
Soviet Government or to distort his statements, the truth will 
triumph. One indication of this is the fact that Americans received 
the head of the Soviet Government with great warmth everywhere, 
all along the route of his U.S. tour. That warm welcome is a genuine 
expression of the American people's urge for peace and friendship 
with the Soviet people. 


N. S. Khrushchev called at the Longshoremen's Union of the Pacific 
Coast on September 21. At the request of the workers he addressed the 
people assembled with a brief message of greetings. 

Allow me to address you the way we Soviet workers are accus- 
tomed to addressing each other comrades! (Stormy applause. Cries 
of greetings.) I express sincere gratitude to Harry Bridges, the chair- 
man of your union, for the kind invitation. During my stay in the 
United States I have met with ordinary Americans and with your 
public men. I received the impression that Americans want peace. 
We greet such a desire as we ourselves want a stable peace! (Stormy 
applause. Cries in Russian and in English: "Mir!", "Peace!") I thank 
you dear friends for the warm reception. (Stormy applause.) I con- 
vey greetings to you from Soviet workers, and on returning home 
shall convey to them your greetings. (Stormy applause.) I would like 
to wish you what workers desire. And what do workers desire! ("Cries: 
"Peace!") That is true peace. It is necessary that there be peace. 
Besides this, I hope that you always have work and good wages. 
(Stormy applause.) Good-bye friends! (Stormy applause. Cries of 
"Peace/" "Friendship!" "Good-bye, Khrushchev!") 



On September 21, N. S. Khrushchev and his party visited the IBM 
Corp. plant in San Jose, Calif. 

Thomas Watson, president of the corporation, warmly welcomed 
the head of the Soviet Government. N. S. Khrushchev made a reply 

Mr. President of the Corporation, I wish to thank you from the 
bottom of my heart for the reception you have accorded my party 


and myself, I like very much the method of self-service used here 
in your cafeteria. We are using the same method, but not widely 
enough. Your example is worthy of imitation at our own factories. 
I must point out an agreeable thing when I meet businessmen, 
we find a common language in our conversations. Being men of 
action, we are quick to understand each other and get down to 
business-like talk. I like that. 

But when I meet and talk with certain trade-union or other 
political leaders, things don't always take the desired turn. In your 
remarks, Mr. President, you spoke well of your system. And that is 
understandable, because everyone defends his own system. We keep 
our own opinion. 

I remember a story for children, in which the following cir- 
cumstance is aptly brought out: the snipe asks the quail to come and 
see him. They have the following conversation. Well, what* s it like 
living in a field?* asks the snipe. 'It's dry there, with no water.' 'But 
I live in a marsh. It's good to live in a marsh!* 

*You rot in your marsh,* answered the quaiL *You know nothing 
of dry land. But look how nice it is where I live, with the sun shining 
and flowers all around.' 

The snipe and the quail didn't see eye to eye, and each thought 
he was right 

That's what sometimes happens to people. Each thinks his own 
system the best. Let us not argue this point You believe your way 
of life to be better, and we think our way of life is better. Time will 
show who lives in a marsh and who soars in the sky. At any rate, 
our communist Lunik is now on the moon, looking down at the 
earth, wondering how soon its American brother will follow it 
(Laughter, applause.) 

We are having a peaceful, friendly chat with you. The President 
here has set the right tone like a good conductor. We mustn't aggra- 
vate relations, mustn't raise questions that can only be settled by 
reality itself in due course. Let us not argue those questions, because 
the deeper we get involved in argument, the more the strings will 
tighten, while we must loosen the strings, not tighten them, so as 
to come closer to each other, to be friends and do everything to 
assure world peace. (Applause.) 

We want to be friends with the American people and the 
American Government I stress, the Government, making no dis- 
tinction between people and government, because that is the only 
condition on which we can achieve the results we are striving for, 


that is to say, friendly relations between our countries, and peaceful 
coexistence. Some people ask me what is peaceful coexistence. I have 
already explained that repeatedly and am willing to do so patiently 
again and again. If there's anyone who doesn't understand, let him 
reflect some more. If he still doesn't understand, he evidently isn't 
mature yet. Then let him develop some more, and reality will bring 
it home to him, perhaps he will knock bumps on his head before 
he realizes how essential is peaceful coexistence. To put it in a 
nutshell, peaceful coexistence means that states with opposite systems 
should live in peace, without wars. (Applause.) 

Thank you for your attention. Thank you. (Applause.) 



On the evening of September 21, the municipal authorities, business 
circles and public of San Francisco gave a reception in honor of N. S. 

The guest speakers were Chairman of the North California Council 
for International Affairs Rockwell, Mayor Christopher, Governor 
Brown, the President's special representative Henry Cabot Lodge and 
Chairman of the Commonwealth Club Johnson. 

The floor was then given to N. S. Khrushchev. 


I am very grateful to you for this invitation to address such 
an esteemed gathering. 

We came to San Francisco from Los Angeles. We traveled along 
the lovely coast, admired the beauties of the California landscape 
and saw your bountiful land. All along the route the California sun 
shone just as benevolently as the sun in the Crimea, where I spent 
my vacation before coming to the USA. 

But it is not sunlight alone that warms our hearts so far from 
home. We are being met and received cordially by the Californians. 
We would like the friendship between our peoples to be as inex- 
tinguishable and bright as your southern sun. (Prolonged applause.) 

It is a pleasure to see a rich and beautiful land. And it is an 
even greater pleasure to see how ably you utilize the riches of 
California. When the first European, the Portuguese traveler Juan 
Rodriguez Cabrillo, set foot in California in 1542 it was an unex- 
plored territory with virgin forests of giant sequoias, many of which 


were already almost a thousand years old, and with incalculable 
wealth oil and gold lying untouched in the ground 

But are gold and oil the only riches of California? You have 
everything: trout and salmon, cotton the priceless "white gold" 
oranges, grapes and redwood, minerals and huge reserves of "blue 

Yours is a fertile land, ladies and gentlemen, and your city of 
San Francisco is magnificent Its coast is lapped by the waves of the 
Pacific, whose waters also wash the shores of the Soviet Far East 

I did not have the opportunity of coming to your city by sea, but 
I know that the entrance there is through the Golden Gate, I would 
like to express the confidence that the day is not distant when this 
Golden Gate will open hospitably for Soviet ships bringing goods you 
need to your country, and American merchant ships will pass through 
this gate bound for ports in the Soviet Unioa (Applause.) 

At one time Russian people, too, reached California across the 
Pacific, You know, of course, that some of the towns and commu- 
nities here still have Russian names. 

Khrushchev answers greetings of San Francisco citizens. 


The American West traded with our country for many years. 
And it is just lately that Soviet-American trade has been brought 
to practically a standstill 

I have already said on several occasions that we have come to 
the United States with an open heart and honest intentions. We want 
only one thing: to live in peace and friendship with you and with 
other nations. I think that the esteemed Californians gathered here 
share these feelings and aspirations. (Applause.) 

Americans who have visited the Soviet Union bring home dif- 
ferent opinions about our country and about its life. But all of them 
will confirm that the words "peace" and "friendship" are heard at 
every step in the Soviet Union. These words are laid out in white 
stone along railways, they are written in flowers in gardens, squares 
and parks, and traced on the walls of houses. They are in the heart 
of every Soviet citizen. The reason for this is that through peaceful 
labor the Soviet people endeavor to protect themselves and the whole 
world from the horrors of war. We know very well what war is and 
although we are strong we do not want mankind ever again to go 
through the calamities and destruction of war. (Applause.) 

It goes without saying that the best way to avert war, to eradi- 
cate it at its roots, is to destroy the means of waging war. 

At the United Nations a few days ago the Soviet Government 
submitted a proposal on general and complete disarmament with the 
establishment of unlimited inspection. A little earlier, at the end of 
August, the Soviet Government passed a decision not to resume 
nuclear tests if such tests are not resumed by the Western Powers. 

The Soviet Union will persist in its efforts to achieve a complete 
cessation of nuclear weapons tests, considering this to be an impor- 
tant step toward ending the nuclear arms race and removing the 
menace to the lives and health of millions of people. 

Everybody is well aware that the settlement of these problems 
is not all that is essential for the preservation of peace. Survivals of 
the Second World War likewise harbor the danger of a new war, 
and therefore this problem, too, has to be settled. 

In proposing a peace treaty with Germany, with due regard to 
the fact that there are two German states, we are not seeking any 
unilateral benefits or advantages for ourselves. What advantages can 
there be when the question is to extinguish the still smoldering 
embers of a past conflagration? 

The Soviet Union has on many occasions pointed out that its 


aim is to normalize the situation in Germany, which would also 
eliminate the abnormal situation in Berlin. 

I shall not go into detail. We have already had and will still 
have frank talks on many questions with the President of the USA, 
Mr. Dwight D. Eisenhower. It is to be hoped that as a result of our 
talks both sides will draw considerably nearer to a settlement of 
pressing international issues, and that, in the final analysis, will 
stfengthen world peace and security. 

To arrive at a correct solution of urgent problems as quickly 
as possible, all prejudice and ill-will must be swept aside. It is just 
in this way that Soviet people approach the questions dividing us. 
We want to understand you and your motives better. But that calls 
for reciprocity. You must also understand us well and understand 
our motives. The Soviet Union is not seeking any benefits for itself. 
All we want is that war should not threaten people anywhere on 
earth. (Prolonged applause.) 

Properly speaking, I have finished the address I prepared for 
such a representative and esteemed gathering. But if you have no 
objection I should like to add a thing or two. I feel I must share with 
you the impressions I have gained today. (Applause.) 

It was a great pleasure to take a drive through the city, to see 
your bay from a ship, not for the purpose of spying out anything 
but of admiring your lovely coast and splendid bay with the most 
sincere feeling of friendship. (Animation, applause.) 

I thank the officials of the Longshoremen's Union and the own- 
ers or contractors (I do not know how you call them), who organize 
shipments, for inviting me to visit them. The friendly talk at the 
Council of this trade union gave me pleasure. I shall long remember 
this wonderful day. I acquired one thing in San Francisco: A long- 
shoreman gave me his cap, and in token of my appreciation I gave 
him my Soviet hat. (Laughter, applause.) For me it will be a pleasant 
souvenir of San Francisco. (Applause.) 

When we drove with Mr. Lodge along the fine roads you have 
built, it gave me great pleasure to see the people meeting us. They 
came out into the streets, perhaps by chance or possibly with the 
express purpose of seeing what the foreigner who had come to them, 
and who was a confirmed Communist and the Prime Minister of the 
great Soviet Union, was like. We saw smiles and expressions of kind, 
friendly feelings. (Applause.) 

It was a great pleasure to visit the computer plant, where we 
were accorded a very warm welcome. Allow me to express special 


thanks here to Mr. Watson, President of the International Business 
Machines Corp., who showed us great courtesy, talked warmly with 
us and spoke very well and with great understanding of the need 
to improve relations between our countries. He is a very likeable 
man, and for us he is all the more likeable for having been in the 
Soviet Union and seen the life and work of our factories. (Anima- 
tion, applause.) 

The plant we toured produces computer machines. That is 
evidently very interesting, but I am not a specialist in this field and 
for that reason in the given case my evaluation means nothing. In 
the Soviet Union we too produce computer machines, and I do not 
know who makes them better, or whose machines are better, yours 
or ours. That too remains to be seen. (Animation.) We. have seen 
your computing machines, but you have not seen ours. Perhaps ours 
are better. The production of computing machines is kept secret for 
the time being, but I do not think much time will elapse before these 
secrets are made available to everybody who might benefit by them. 
(Animation, applause.) 

I repeat that I can be shown factories of this kind, because I 
will not take advantage of any secrets. (Laughter, applause.) 

Speaking of secrets, I remember when the preparations for the 
launching of our first rocket were completed, the scientists invited 
members of the government to inspect it We walked round the 
rocket, peered here and there, examined it on all sides (animation), 
but we do not know how it works, or, as people say, "what gravy it's 
eaten with." I think "secrets" like these can be shown to many 
people: They, too, will look, and feel, but won't understand a thing. 
(Animation, applause.) 

I repeat, we are very grateful to the engineers, employees and 
workers of this factory, who were so kind to us during our visit to 
their factory. I am particularly satisfied with the cooks, who prepared 
a splendid meat I enjoyed the dishes into which the cooks had put 
their culinary art, their skill. In this question of how meals are 
prepared, I think everybody, the specialist and the non-specialist 
alike, is more or less at home. (Laughter, applause.) 

I very much regret that I had no opportunity today of visiting 
the Research Institute at Stanford, whose director or, to use your 
term, president, is the esteemed scientist Mr. Finley Carter. Our 
scientist, Professor Yemelyanov, went there today. That is good, of 
course, but I wanted to go, too. However, you cannot, as Kozma 
Prutkov said, embrace the unembraceable. You do not know and, 


in fact, nobody knows him, because he never existed physically, but 
the utterances, which in my country are known as the aphorisms of 
Kozma Prutkov, are really good. (Animation.) 

I should like to add a few words to what I have already said 
about your lovely city of San Francisco. When the Second World 
War ended and our soldiers came home, the ones who had fought 
for the liberation of Bulgaria brought back a good song about that 
country. You know that the Soviet people are especially warmly 
disposed toward the Bulgarian people. The Russians and Bulgarians 
are brother nations. Their languages are very much alike. When the 
Bulgarians were ruled by the Turks, the Russians always had a 
brotherly feeling for them. Russians shed a lot of blood to help the 
Bulgarians free themselves from the Turkish yoke. We also helped 
the Greeks to liberate themselves, Mr. Christopher. (Laughter, 
applause.) (Mr. Christopher, Mayor of San Francisco, is of Greek 
origin. Ed.) 

Now then, this song contains the following lines: "Beautiful is 
the land of Bulgaria, but Russia is the best of all ..." I would some- 
what re-word this song and say: "Beautiful are the cities of the 
United States that I have visited, but San Francisco is the best of 
all" (Stormy applause, cries of approval.) 

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me now to express my most sincere 
gratitude to all of today's speakers. I shall not name them or single 
anyone outall of them are worthy people and they spoke well I do 
not know who among you is the chief organizer, but he lias shown 
his skill in arranging this meeting. I tender you my heartfelt grati- 
tude for everything. (Applause.) 

The people of San Francisco have bewitched us. I felt I was 
among friendly people, who have the same thoughts as the peoples 
of the Soviet Union! To prove this I can tell you of something that 
happened when we drove about the city. Our car stopped acci- 
dentally in front of a house and I asked an ordinary woman, who 
happened to be near us, what she would like, what her wishes were 
She replied, "My only wish is that there should be peace on earth, 
that there should be no war." I think she expressed the thoughts and 
wishes of all people adults, men and women, and children, because 
peace is in the heart and on the lips of each one of them both in 
the Soviet Union and here in the United States of America. All the 
nations of the world want peace. (Stormy applause.) 

The main thing we must now seek is not the questions on which 
we disagree. These have stuck so deeply in the throats of everyone 


that we cannot extract them, hard as we try. We must seek out what 
we have in common, so as to build up our relations on that, to achieve 
better mutual understanding, and to draw closer to each other in 
questions where we can find common ground. 

Do you iniagine you can convince me that the capitalist system 
is better than the socialist? Neither do I want to think that I can 
convince you that the communist system is better. Evidently, we 
shall each maintain our opinions, but that must not prevent us from 
living in friendship, from being good neighbors and showing concern 
about improving relations between our countries. (Prolonged 

1 would like to assure you, ladies and gentlemen, that I have no 
intention at all of calling you into the communist realm. I am simply 
telling you perhaps you will yet recall my words when you get a 
better knowledge of Soviet people, their thoughts and aspirations. 
You may not agree just now, but the time will come when you will 
admit that Communists have the noblest of thoughts and aspirations. 
We strive to build a commttaist society based on the loftiest of ideals. 
Communism is not yet our present, but our future. But we are already 
building it We are building a society where man is the friend of 
man, where no enmity exists, where no blood is shed, where all people 
are equal These great human ideals should also be understandable 
to religious people, to people who are not Communists. From the 
Scriptures they ought to remember the exhortation to love their 
neighbor, and so on. 

Do not judge Soviet people, Communists, only by the period 
of the Civil War. The Civil War was imposed on our people and they 
were forced to repulse their enemies. Your American ancestors also 
fought a bitter Civil War when the North fought the South, and 
killed one another in that war. The best people of your country fought 
for the democratic ideas held aloft by Lincoln, and they won. 

At present we are waging our fight for communism with the 
best of human motives. We are not waging it, arms in hand, but with 
the word, by peaceful means, with our labor. Let those who do not 
wish to accept our convictions retain their own. We understand 
people who respect their own system. (Applause.) 

Mr. Mayor Christopher, my friends and I greatly appreciate the 
kind feelings you have expressed. But I hesitate to speak in your 
praise. Your election campaign will soon start, and I would not like 
people to think that I am meddling in your internal affairs. Your 


opponent might ask why Khrushchev spoke about you and said 
nothing about him. (Laughter, applause.) 

We had a conversation with Mr. Christopher. I told him that I 
had not decided yet for whom I would vote were I given an oppor- 
tunity to do so. I will give it further thought and perhaps tell him 
at the end of the dinner, depending on how good the dinner is. 
(Animation.) I must say that you are winning in that respect: The 
food has been deliciously prepared and served in abundance, so that 
by all outward signs I ought to vote for you; but, I repeat, I'll give 
that further thought (Laughter, applause.) 

From this distinguished rostrum I should like to thank the 
manager of the store which we were so kindly shown. It is an excel- 
lent store. America is a rich country, but we have no wish to impose 
upon your wealth. At the moment we are producing less than you, 
but we will put our backs to it and produce more. This will not 
harm you in any way, but will contribute to the prosperity of our 
country, of our people. (Applause.) 

I consider it my duty here in San Francisco to say a few words 
about your neighbor, the city of Los Angeles and its people. (Anima- 
tion.) I want to say some good things about these people. 

We were pleased with the meetings we had with the population 
of Los Angeles. But something unforeseen happened there, I was 
told that when we were driving through the city, the car of the Chief 
of Police drove in front of us. Some individual who must have had 
either too much or too little sense, threw a tomato, perhaps even a 
good tomato, and it hit that car. (Animation.) The Chief of Police 
then displayed his authority and deprived us of the pleasure of 
seeing the fabulous world of Disneyland, which was put down in our 
itinerary. (Laughter, applause.) 

I am grateful to the Chief of Police for his concern about my 
welfare, but I would say that he showed too much zeal. He should 
have acted more calmly. I am sure that if we had gone to Disneyland 
nothing but good would have come of it But, after all, you do come 
across superstitious people! There was a case like this even with so 
great a man as Pushkin, the Russian poet It is said that one day in 
winter a black cat ran across the road when he drove out in a sleigh, 
and because of that he turned back But that was long ago. In our 
day we should not be deterred by a "black cat"; we should have 
carried on with the pre-arranged program. I think everything would 
have been all right. (Applause.) 


Now I should like to say a few words in defense and if not in 
defense, then in favor of the Mayor of Los Angeles. (Animation.; 
When we arrived in Los Angeles, the Mayor and his family received 
us very cordially. He has a very charming wife and wonderful daugh- 
ters. But at the dinner he made a speech which was not altogether 
happy. You do get unhappy speeches. Many of you have probably 
spoken on many occasions. Tell me frankly, ladies and gentlemen, 
are you always pleased with the speeches you make? As for me, there 
have been instances when I have not been pleased with my speeches. 
The same thing also happened to the Mayor of Los Angeles. So let 
us find it in our hearts to make allowances for him, for, after all, as 
religious people say, "We must forgive our neighbor his trespasses," 
especially if he perceives them. (Animation.) 1 think we should 
follow this good custom and consider the unpleasant incident which 
happened there as having simply been an accident it did not come 
from the heart, nor from the mind. Let us consider the question 
closed. (Applause.) There is peace and friendship between us and 
the American people and, in particular, the Americans of Los Angeles 
and San Francisco. But as today I am speaking in San Francisco, 
I show just a little more preference for your city than for Los 
Angeles. (Laughter, applause.) 

We had an amiable talk with the Mayor of Los Angeles before 
his speech, and during that talk I invited him to visit Moscow with 
his wife and daughters. I want to say from this rostrum that this 
invitation still holds good We shall hospitably receive the Mayor of 
Los Angeles and his family in Moscow and drop no hint about his 
unhappy speech. 

I would have also been pleased to invite you to Moscow, Mr. 
Christopher, but I do not know whether or not my invitation will be 
to your advantage in the coming elections. That is a very complicated 
question for me. I therefore extend this invitation to all of you here, 
to all the people of the lovely, verdant and sunny city of San Fran- 
cisco y O u are always welcome, come to the Soviet Union, come to 
our Moscow, we shall be happy to receive you. (Prolonged applause.) 

We have a proverb that says, "He who has not been to Russia 
has not seen the world." See our country and perhaps you too will 
like it (Stormy applause.) 

Allow me to express the hope that our stay in the United States 
of America, our meetings with representatives of the business world 
and the American public will be of benefit, will help to bring our 
countries closer together, and, consequently, to arrive faster at mutu- 


ally acceptable decisions in the Interests of consolidating peace and 
friendship among nations. I thank you, ladies and gentlemen. (Stormy 
applause, all rise, ones of approval.) 

At the end of the reception, the Mayor of San Francisco, Mr. 
Christopher, presented N. S. Khrushchev with a gift a chairman's gavel 
made of redwood. Expressing his thanks for the gift, N. S. Khrushchev 

In my country we do not use chairmen's gavels at meetings or 
official conferences. I therefore do not know where I could use it 

I would like the first knock of this gavel to seal an understanding 
between the President of the USA, Mr. Eisenhower, and myself on 
the conclusion of an agreement a treaty of peace, nonaggression 
and cooperation, and best of all of friendship between our countries. 
That would be of great benefit to the peoples of our countries and 
to the cause of peace throughout the world, (Stormy, prolonged 

It would also be good if an agreement were reached on the 
question of disarmament, so as to put an end to the arms race once 
and for all* so that people would cot be threatened with war, so that 
they could live among themselves in peace and friendship. 

I would be the happiest of men if that were achieved, ladies 
and gentlemen. (Stormy, prolonged applause.) 


IN I O W A September 22-23 


On September 22 N. S. Khrushchev and his party arrived in Des 
Moines, capital of Iowa. 

He was met at the airfield by the Governor of Iowa Herschel Love- 
less, Mayor lies and representative^ of the Chamber of Commerce. 

' Replying to the greetings N. S. Khrushchev said: 

I am very pleased to arrive in your state. We know quite a lot 
about your state of Iowa and we shall gladly acquaint ourselves with 
the life of the people in your state. We know that you occupy first 
place in the United States in the production of corn. We shall com- 
pete with you, and we think that this competition will be beneficial 
both for us and for you. 

Thank you for the kind words, for the words of welcome. I think 
that our meetings and talks will bring us closer together and will 
create the necessary conditions for strengthening peace and friend- 
ship between peoples. 

Many inhabitants of the city gathered at the entrance of the Fort 
Des Moines Hotel where N. S. Khrushchev was staying. Correspondents 
of local papers and the TV station asked the head of the Soviet Gov- 
ernment to say a few words to the inhabitants of the state of Iowa. 

N. S. Khrushchev expressed his satisfaction on arriving on the 
state's territory which is famed throughout the world for its achieve- 
ments in growing corn and developing animal husbandry. 

The pebple in the United States also strive for peace as our 
people do. I am very pleased to note this. It is precisely the striving 
of both our peoples for peace that induced me to accept President 
Eisenhower's invitation and to visit the United States. 

Today I saw an interesting poster in English in Des Moines. 
It carried the following inscription: "We don't agree with you on 
many questions, but we welcome you." This is a sensible slogan. We 
also don't agree with you on many matters, but we also greet you. 
You can live the way you like best and we shall live the way we 
like best, but let us be friends in order to ensure peace between our 



The Des Moines Chamber of Commerce held a reception in honor 
of N. S. Khrushchev the evening of September 22. Speeches were made 
by Governor Loveless of Iowa, and by Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., the 
President's special representative. N. S. Khrushchev made a speech in 


Allow me to thank you for your invitation to visit your state 
and its capital, the fine city of Des Moines, and for the warm recep- 
tion extended to me and my companions. I am also grateful to the 
President of your Chamber of Commerce and his colleagues for 
giving rne the opportunity to address you. 

I avail myself of the occasion to convey to you, and through 
you to the people of the State of Iowa, the heartfelt greetings of the 
Soviet people and best wishes for success in life and in your work. 

We are happy to visit the State of Iowa whose fame as a leading 
farming area has spread far beyond the United States. 

In the Soviet Union we are well aware that your state occupies 
' an important place in the world output of corn and that you have 
some fine achievements in livestock breeding. You will probably be 
interested to know that one of the largest farming districts of our 
country, Krasnodar Territory, wants to compete ^with Iowa in the 
output of farm produce. People in many Cossack villages in the 
Kuban area have a good knowledge of what your farms have achieved 
in the production of corn, meat, milk and other farm produce. 

I have never been in your country before, but I have had many 
talks with representatives of the American people and with our 
people who had visited America. I remember, in particular, my talks 
with Mr. Garst, a fanner from your state, who has visited the Soviet 
Union several times. I remember my talks with Senator Ellender 
who also spoke about your agriculture. I never miss an opportunity 
of seeing films that depict different aspects of life in your country. 

The agriculture of the United States, and of your state in par- 
ticular, is of great interest to us, above all because it is highly mech- 
anized. Some of your farms have achieved a high labor productivity 
by mechanizing field work and the feeding of all kinds of farm animals 
and poultry. The output per worker is today much higher on your 
farms than in our kolkhozes (collective farms). I must say, however, 
that some of your economists are mistaken when they mechanically 
compare the output figures of your farms and those of our kolkhozes 


Iowa University students in Ames welcome the head of the Soviet government. 

in terms of output per worker. In so doing they fail to consider the 
fact that fanning in the Soviet Union and in the United States is 
based on absolutely opposite principles. 

While your farms are private capitalist enterprises belonging to 
individual owners, the kolkhozes in the Soviet Union are socialized 
cooperative farms belonging to peasant collectives. 

Everything that is economically unprofitable on your farms is 
deprived of the right to live and ceases to exist Weaker farms that 
have no adequate income and working capital cannot cope with the 
situation. They are unable to effect such a high degree of mechaniza- 
tion as the large farms, fall behind and are ruined, and their places 
are taken by the stronger farms. The law of competition, inherent in 
capitalism, operates in your country. 

In our country, on the other hand, farming is developing pn 
other, that is, socialist principles. The kolkhozes are large cooperative 
farms established through the voluntary association of peasant farms. 
For this reason, the number of people working on a given farm is 
not the minimum necessary to till the soil, cultivate the crops and 
raise farm animals and poultry. Rather, it represents the number of 
able-bodied workers in the given cooperative. We cannot allow a 
state of affairs in which some members of the cooperative work, 
while others are deprived of the right to work. We realize that there 


are shortcomings in the organization of labor and the employment 
of manpower in our kolkhozes, and are doing away with these 

Of course, the lag of our farms in the field of mechanization 
and labor productivity, as compared with yours, is temporary. The 
socialist system of agriculture makes it possible to eliminate the lag 
in a brief space of time and to attain higher labor productivity than 
on your farms. The socialist system offers boundless scope for pro- 
duction development because it knows neither crises nor competitioa 
In our country there is not and cannot be the danger that some farm 
or another will be ruined. We have a sufficiently high level of scien- 
tific farming, and skilled personnel, and a machine-building industry 
capable of providing farms with the necessary machinery. We are 
endeavoring to effect the comprehensive mechanization of all fann- 
ing processes by using modern machinery and making more rational 
use of manpower to ensure a high output per farm worker. We have 
some fine specialists in mechanization who have achieved greater 
labor productivity in the cultivation of corn, cotton, sugar beet and 
other crops than that recorded by your best farms. 

At the present time we are accelerating the development of the 
chemical industry. This will enable us to produce more mineral 
fertilizer, weed killers and insecticides, the extensive use of which 
will considerably raise the yield of farm crops and increase output 
per farm worker. This is one of our big potentialities. We also have 
some other big potentialities for the further growth of farm output 
We have a large number of tractors and other farm machines. 

Today, we are making very good progress in agriculture. In a 
short time in just five years we increased the output of grain from 
82 million tons in 1953 to 141 million tons in 1958, the amount of 
grain purchased by the state rising from 31 million to 57 million 
tons. In the course of only three years we brought 90 million acres 
of virgin soil under the plow in the eastern regions of our country, 
and that is four times the crop area of the State of Iowa. Now we 
have considerably more fodder for our cattle. In those same five 
years the amount of silage stored increased from 32 million to 148 
million tons in 1958, this amount including 108 million tons of corn 
silage, of which next to nothing was produced formerly. 

In the last five years the cattle herds in our country have 
increased by 15 million head, pigs by more than 15 million and 
sheep by 30 million head This enabled us to increase state purchases 
of meat for consumption by the non-farming population. In eight 


months of 1959 we have purchased three times more meat than in 
the same period of 1953, 23 times more milk, 2.2 times more eggs 
and twice as much wool. 

Our agriculture has great potentialities and limitless opportu- 
nities to further extend the cultivated area, increase the yield of grain 
crops and develop livestock breeding. 

American farmers, colleagues of yours, who have visited the 
Soviet Union, say that there are many points of interest in our 
country in the development of science, in biological selection, in the 
cultivation of industrial crops and in livestock breeding. I am sure 
that your farmers and specialists could make good use of many of 
the Soviet achievements in both practical farming and the agricul- 
tural sciences. And you, too, have much that is valuable and instruc- 
tive. Soviet specialists who have visited the USA speak of your great 
achievements in corn cultivation and in poultry raising. You obtain 
the greatest increase in poultry weight per unit of feed one kilogram 
increase to about two and a half kilograms of feed We must learn 
from your experience. We pay due tribute to the knowledge, industry 

Photo shows N. S. Khrushchev and his wife Nina Petrovna 
(center) talking with Iowa University students in Ames. 


[ experience of American farmers, scientists, and farm specialists, 
ur achievements are worthy of praise and your experience is 
thy of study and imitation. 

There is much of value that we can learn from each other. I 
ik there is no need to speak of the great importance of studying 
terience gained in the field of agriculture and of sharing that 
>erience. I know there are people who oppose such contacts and 
D believe that contacts, an improvement in the economic relations 
our countries, would serve the more rapid economic development 
the Soviet Union and the more successful fulfillment of its plans, 
ne of your country's periodicals carry arables in which an attempt 
nade to show that our seven-year plar constitutes the "danger of 
Joviet economic offensive." But what, may I ask, is the danger of 
endeavor, say, to increase the volume of farm output, and to 
om is it dangerous? What harm is there in our desire to compete 
h you, say, in the output of corn, meat and milk? I don't suppose 
fbody will assert that a greater consumption of milk, butter and 
at will make Soviet people more "aggressive"! 

It is true that our people have adopted the motto: "Overtake 
i outstrip the United States in output per capita of population." 
t can this be regarded as a "danger" to Americans? We, for 
imple, are by no means inclined to regard the farmers of Iowa 
aggressive people simply because today they produce considerably 
ire corn and meat than the Kuban kolkhozes. We challenge you to 
:ompetition in the output of meat, milk, butter, consumer goods, 
tchines, steel, coal and oil, so that people might live better. This 
far more beneficial competition than competition in stockpiling 
drogen bombs and all sorts of weapons. May there be more corn 
i meat, and no hydrogen bombs at all! 

Farming is the oldest, the most vital and most peaceful branch 
human industry. We want grain to grow in the fields and we want 
rhards to blossom, we want the earth to be turned up by peaceful 
>ws and not by rockets and tank tracks. 

You probably know the breath-taking prospects of peaceful 
velopment envisaged in our seven-year plan. You are business 
aple and realize full well that whoever turns all his attention to 
veloping peace economy, who employs his means and resources to 
it end, is not interested in war and war preparations. It is better 
trade in agricultural and industrial produce than to continue the 
ns race and discrimination in world trade. 

The Soviet people are applying all their efforts to peaceful 


Khrushchev speaking to reporters in Des Moines. 

construction Our seven-year plan envisages an almost twofold over- 
all increase in industrial and agricultural output, while in many 
important branches the increase will be several times greater. In 
the field of agriculture we plan an annual output of 164 million to 
180 million tons of grain, 76 million to 84 million tons of sugar beet; 
not less than 16 million tons of meat, and 100 million to 105 million 
tons of milk The Soviet people are confident that we shall not only 
reach these targets, but even exceed them. In 1958, already, the 
Soviet Union surpassed the United States in over-all output of milk, 
especially of butter, and hopes to overtake and to outstrip the United 
States in the output of these items per capita within the next few 
years. Our country produces more wheat, sugar beet and wool than 
the USA. But I do not think this does any harm to the United States 
or to the farmers of Iowa. 

In the past few years many Americans have visited the Soviet 
Union. Leading statesmen and men prominent in public life, Senators 
and Congressmen, businessmen', industrialists and farmers have been 
to our country. .AH of them enjoyed the hospitality of the Soviet 
people and were able to see for themselves that the Soviet people 
are a peace-loving people and that they are friendly toward the 
American people. 

The purpose of our visit to the United States at the invitation 
of President Eisenhower is to help improve relations between the 
Soviet Union and the United States, and to strengthen peace. 

As we know from history, there never have been in the past, 
and there are not at present, any territorial disputes between the 


Soviet Union and the iJnited States standing in the way of good, 
friendly relations. It is also known that among the Americans there 
are many people who want good relations with our country. 

The peoples of the Soviet Union sincerely desire to strengthen 
and develop friendly relations with the American people. You know 
that in the past there have been many fine examples of friendly 
cooperation between our countries. In the Second World War the 
Soviet Union and the United States fought together, hand in hand, 
against the common enemy who threatened all mankind. And this 
speeded up victory and brought the peace whose benefits the nations 

The Soviet people want the experience of friendly collaboration 
between the peoples of our countries to be strengthened and expand- 
ed under present-day conditions in the interest of consolidating peace. 

We are in favor of improving Soviet-American relations because 
we believe it to be in the interest of both nations. The establishment 
of friendly relations between the USA and the USSR would Be an 
important step toward strengthening world peace and good relations 
among all peoples. The businessmen of your country can play an 
important part in improving Soviet-American relations. All mankind 
today hopes fervently that the Soviet Union and the United States 
will make a big contribution to the solution of the basic problems of 
our day, to the consolidation of peace. 

If we succeed in improving relations between our countries, if 
we succeed in arranging mutually beneficial trade and in further 
extending our cultural, sports and other contacts, we shall thereby 
make a big contribution to the cause of relieving international ten- 
sion, the cause of peaceful coexistence and the strengthening of world 
peace. And this will, in turn, have a beneficial influence on the lives 
of our peoples and of all mankind. 

During our stay in the United States of America we have had 
many interesting meetings and conversations with representatives of 
various sections of the American people. These meetings and conver- 
sations show that the American people do not want war, that they 
desire peace. We have heard many warm words addressed to the 
Soviet people and many friendly good wishes. We are grateful for 
these expressions of good feeling and thank you for them, and for 
our part assure you that the Soviet people are awaiting President 
Eisenhower's visit to our country and will extend him a fitting 

1*0 conclude my speech I should once again like to emphasize 


Photo s&ows N, S. Khrushchev shaking hands with a worker on Garsfs farm. 
Khrushchev with children at the Garst farm. 


the unwavering determination of the Soviet people to uphold the 
cause of peace, to improve and develop friendly relations and coop- 
eration between our countries, among the peoples of all countries. 
This is the purpose of the proposals for general and complete dis- 
armament presented by the Soviet Government in the United Nations. 
This, too, is the purpose of the Soviet proposal to conclude a peace 
treaty with Germany. It is our opinion that these problems are not 
insoluble, provided, of course, there is a desire to adjust them. Where 
there's a will, there's a way. These problems can be solved because 
all the peoples have one object in view the most noble and vitally 
important object that of safeguarding peace. 

For the sake of achieving this lofty aim all countries must make 
an effort and display the maximum desire. The cooperation of all the 
countries of the world, and, first and foremost, of our two countries, 
is essential to bring about a thaw and to melt the ice of the cold 
war once and for all. It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good. 
May the winds of peace and friendship blow over the fields, and 
may clouds appear in the sky only when a good shower is necessary 
for a good harvest. 

May the two words, peace and friendship, be inscribed on the 
banners of each of our nations and may they guide the conscience 
and actions of our governments. 

I wish you success in the further development of your excellent 
State of Iowa, and health and happiness for you alL 

Thank you. 

( N. S. Khrushchev's speech was frequently interrupted by 

N. S. Khrushchev, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the 
USSR, spent all of September 23 in Iowa, one of the United States' 
major agricultural centers. 

On the morning of September 23, N. S. Khrushchev and his party 
drove from Des Moines to Coon Rapids to inspect the farms of Roswell 
Garst, who is well-known in the Soviet Union, and of other farmers. 

Giving his impressions of Garst's farm, N. S. Khrushchev said: 

Before arriving here I had a picture of Mr. Garst's good farm 
from accounts and films. I have known Mr. Garst for several years. 
However, it is always better to see than to hear. I am glad that what 
I heard about this farm has been confirmed I am happy over your 
achievements and I ask you also to rejoice over our achievements. 

I must express my profound respect for the inhabitants of the 
state of Iowa, both urban dwellers and farmers, whom I met I would 


hrushchev talking with Amerf- 
ns on the Garst farm in Iowa. 

especially like to mention the editor of the local Des Moines Register 
who several years ago showed foresight and through his paper 
advanced the proposal of organizing an exchange of agricultural 
delegations between the United States of America and the Soviet 

After inspecting the farms of Garst and Thomas, N. S. Khrushchev 
visited Iowa State College in Ames. Bidding the students and the 
teaching staff farewell, N. S. Khrushchev said: 

Thank you for your cordial welcome. I was very glad to meet 
you, and to have even made a cursory acquaintance with your col- 
lege. I knew something about it before, from what our comrades who 
visited it told us. We have a high opinion of the scientific research 
and teaching conducted in your college. I wish you the best of success. 
Let us exchange experience. This will be useful for our countries. 
Please convey my best wishes to all the students, and may they 
succeed in their studies so as to be of good service to their people and 
country. Please convey my best wishes to the scientists, the teachers, 
the laboratory personnel and all those who are advancing science 
and training specialists. 

N. S. Khrushchev and his party left by plane for Pittsburgh (Penn- 
sylvania) on the evening of September 23. Before leaving Des Moines, 
N. S. Khrushchev addressed those seeing him off with a short speech. 




I wish to express my gratitude to the Governor of Iowa, the 
Mayor of the city and to all the inhabitants of the city and the state 
I met I am boundlessly pleased with the hospitality shown me, a 
representative of the Soviet state and of the Soviet people. On 
leaving I take with me and will convey to the Soviet people the 
friendly wishes which I received from the inhabitants of the state of 

I once again thank you and wish you happiness and prosperity. 



IN PITTSBURGH September 24 

N. S. Khrushchev and his party arrived in Pittsburgh at about mid- 
night. At the airfield the head of the Soviet Government was met by 
representatives of the local authorities and the public. 

Mr. Thomas Gallagher, the city's Mayor, presented N". S. Khrush- 
chev with a symbolic key to Pittsburgh. 



I am very glad to be in your city. I accepted the invitation 
extended by the President of the United States to visit your country 
with great satisfaction. I have already sufficiently traveled around, 
and I have seen a great deal, heard a lot and have had many 
meetings in your country. It is very gratifying that the people of 
America have cordially welcomed me and have showed concern that 
relations between our countries be improved, that friendly relations 
and peace between all peoples be ensured. 

Mr, Mayor, I highly value your confidence expressed in the fact 
that you presented me with a symbolic key of your city. I thank you 
and assure you that I want to be your friend and will never abuse 
your trust, and with this key I will only open those doors which you 
will allow me to open; I shall not make a single step without your 

I thank you for the good welcome and the kind words. I wish 
your city and your people happiness and prosperity. 


The Governor of Pennsylvania, David Lawrence, the Mayor of 
Pittsburgh, Thomas Gallagher, and the President of the University of 
Pittsburgh, Edward Litchfield, gave a luncheon in honor of N. S. 
Khrushchev, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. 

Answering the greetings of his hosts, N. S. Khrushchev said: 


It is a pleasure to meet you. Perhaps it is because your city, a 
city of big industry, brings back vivid memories of the distant past, 


of my childhood and youth, of my work in the Donets Basin. Per- 
haps it is because, in general, I like to meet businessmen, but most 
likely I am happy to meet you for both these reasons. 

There is a good tradition to begin a speech by expressing 
thanks to the audience for their patience. I will not break good 
traditions. Allow me to thank you heartily for your warm welcome 
and to wish you success in your affairs and in life. Meeting different 
people in your city, I got the feeling that contact of some sort had 
already been established between us. 

We Russians and all Soviet people have long admired American 
efficiency, enterprise and the ability to value time. Of course, these 
are only a few of the qualities of the Americans. 

We Soviet people also have our specific traits revolutionary 
scope, courage and initiative. And so, if the efforts of both peoples 
were united on some common ground in the struggle for peace and 
human progress, for example, the results would be good. (Applause.) 

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe you will allow me not to con- 
tinue my speech in Russian since the majority of you do not know 
the Russian language. I would like to ask my young friend, the inter- 
preter, to read the text of the speech in English. That will be shorter. 
I am doing this especially because the Chancellor has said that we 
have to choose between a long and a short speech. So I choose the 
shortest (Laughter, applause.) 

Let us translate all of it into the language of business. 

Your country has attained a high level of industrial develop- 
ment The rapid development of industry in the United States of 
America astounded the whole world and aroused admiration and 

Turnout to welcome the head of the Soviet government on the roaef to Pittsburgh, 

even envy in other countries. Formerly, you did not have a worthy 
contestant in rates of development and in strength. Now you have 
one the Soviet Union. 

Under revolutionary conditions, on a new social basis, we util- 
ized everything valuable that you had created, and we proved that 
your achievements could not only be equaled but also surpassed 

Today we are already catching up with your country in some 
things. To put it figuratively, we are now having an exchange of 
whistle calls. You hear our whistle getting louder and closer. Each 
year it will be heard better and better. And the day is not far 
distant when we shall draw level with you at the same station, salute 
you and move on. Then it will be we, and not you any long <es , who 
are in front And it won't be we who are following you, but you wlio 
will be following us* 

Don't judge me too severely for my firm conviction that events 
will develop in just that way. We are prepared to compete with you 
In so lofty a cause as the satisfaction of the material and cultural 
requirements of the peoples. 

You probably know that the Soviet Union is already the world's 
second industrial power. Incidentally, at one time your country was 
also second, but then it became the first. And you considered this 
to be perfectly natural Why is it then that some of your com- 
patriots think it impossible and even impermissible for us to set 
ourselves the goal of moving up from second place to first? We are 
going to compete with your country in all seriousness. The seven-year 
plan for the development of the Soviet economy has aroused con- 
siderable interest throughout the world. I don't wish to tire you and 
will quote only a few figures. 

In 1958 we produced about 55 million tons of steel and in 1965 
we intend to produce 86 to 91 million tons. 

Last year our output of pig iron was about 40 million tons and 
we plan to produce 65 to 70 million tons. 

Our output of rolled goods was about 43 million tons and we 
plan to produce 65 to 70 million tons in 1965. 

I can tell you that, judging by the first of the seven years and 
by estimates for 1960, we shall have a greater rise in industrial out- 
put than we previously planned. We are, therefore, exceeding the 
targets, as we expected, and the seven-year plan will be fulfilled 
ahead of schedule. 

As you see, we intend to take big strides forward and we are 
capable of doing it 


In a shop of the Mesta Machine-Building Plant in Pittsburgh. 

Our country has accumulated valuable experience in developing 
industry, science and engineering. For example, we are making a 
better use of the effective volume of blast furnaces than you are in 
your country. Our steel workers get more steel per square meter of 
open-hearth furnace. In our country extensive use is made of oxygen 
blast in metallurgy. We are now successfully employing natural gas 
in metallurgy. 

But how can I enumerate everything? And Fve only touched 
on the subject of metallurgy. 

Speaking figuratively, in tlje language of engineers, we can 
imagine the two giant industrial powers, the USSR and the USA, as 
moving along parallel lines. You on your own, and we on our own. 
There may be some people who would be satisfied with such a 
development of events. Even that sort of parallel and isolated devel- 
opment would, of course, be preferable to disputes and conflicts. 

But it is also possible to imagine different relations between 
our countries. Sometimes, at a certain point, these lines, let us say, 
draw close to each other. In other words, contacts are established 


and economic, cultural, scientific and technical exchanges are ar- 
ranged We favor just this development and are prepared to disclose 
our technical achievements to you, making no secret of them. And 
you will do likewise with respect to our country. In your country, 
it is true, such things are not done. Everybody keeps his technical 
secrets to himself and does not even want his neighbor to know 
them, let alone disclose them to a foreign country. 
And so what can we do? 

We propose to approach the matter simply, on the basis of 
mutual benefit 

Although our peoples live differently, maintain a different way 
of life and have different customs, we have to live under the same 
sky. Although the climate in your country is much warmer and 
milder than in ours, the political chill comes from you and not from 
us. It is true, we are Northerners and not afraid of the cold, but 
still we would like wanner, more favorable winds, and not cold winds, 
to blow in the world. 

Neither your people nor ours want war. Then let us live like 
good neighbors or, as we say in Russia, "To live with the people is 
to live in peace/* Let us base our relations on the principle of peace- 
ful coexistence. It gives nobody a one-sided advantage, nobody suffers 
losses from it, nobody makes any sacrifices, but everybody gains 
from it. And, most important of all, the cause of peace gains from it 
A good start has been made visits are being exchanged on 
both sides at the highest level. My visit to the USA and the U.S. 
President's forthcoming visit to the Soviet Union will, we are sure, 
help us to know and understand each other better, and will help find 
a way to cooperation. If both our sides have the will for this, a way 
will be found. 

The slogan "Overtake and surpass the United States" has be- 
come very popular in our country today. Some of your compatriots 
were frightened by this slogan. They saw in it a danger to America 
But in what way is it a "danger" to you Americans? Our economic 
interests do not clash anywhere. Is not our country, engaged in such 
extensive peaceful construction, interested in a dependable and 
durable peace, in the development of comprehensive economic, 
technical and commercial relations with other countries? Certainly 
it is. 

Could not the highly-developed industrial countries give sub- 
stantial and constantly increasing aid to the economically under- 
developed countries? 


I want to assure you that the purpose of our seven-year plan is 
a peaceful one Our plan is calculated to improve the people's life. 
Unfortunately, we live in times when not all the steel produced is 
used for peaceful purposes. How happy the peoples of our countries 
and the peoples of the whole world would be if all the steel smelted 
in America, and here in Pittsburgh in particular, and all the steel in 
the Soviet Union and other countries, were used exclusively for 
peaceful purposes! (Applause.) 

I think you will agree with me when I say that even if we had 
two lives they should be dedicated to this one great and worthy 
cause the consolidation of peace between the peoples. (Applause.) 

There is a distinguished sculptor in our country, Yevgeny 
Vuchetich. He has made a moving statue, called "Let's Beat Swords 
into Plowshares.** It is a fine piece of work that deservedly attracts 
everyone's attention. It represents the figure of a blacksmith ham- 
mering a plowshare out of a sword. If any of you visited our exhibi- 
tion in New York, you must have seen that gifted work of art The 
sculptor has succeeded in embodying in bronze what millions upon 
millions of people are thinking and dreaming of today. 

Is it not time, ladies and gentlemen, to use open-hearth fur- 
naces to melt down the stockpiles of weapons, is it not time to beat 
tanks into tractors and guns into threshers, and to direct the entire 
might of the atom to peaceful purposes only? 

As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, as I have already said 
at the United Nations, we are ready to do it this very day. 

You and we are living in a rather complicated world situation, 
although at times there are bright patches in the overcast sky. Are 
these present days not one of them? It is not for nothing that the 
state of world affairs in recent years has been given the name of 
"cold war." Under conditions of tension the cold war can easily turn 
into a hot one, into a very hot one indeed, a nuclear war, that will 
not only scorch but will burn to ashes. 

The surest way of avoiding such unenviable prospects is to 
destroy the means of waging war, that is, "to beat swords into plow- 
shares. 1 ' We propose that cold war be outlawed everywhere and for 
all time 

There are, of course, people who are interested in the very 
opposite. They are afraid that if there are no war orders, peaceful 
production will not bring in profits. They fear that if the output of 
weapons ceases and there is a change over to peaceful production, 
industry and the entire economy will be kept in a perpetually fever- 


ish state. But this mood springs from sheer lack of foresight Such 
people live by the principle of not looking farther than their noses. 
Indeed, if the weapons being manufactured today are ever used, the 
flames of war will consume not only the profits amassed on arma- 
ments production, but also very many of their owners. 

I would like you to understand me correctly. I do not want to 
reproach anybody. I am merely trying to lay stress on the idea that 
wealth is of use only so long as it is not turned into ashes and cinders. 

It is no secret that a special responsibility for the maintenance 
of peace rests with our two countries. Just imagine what world rela- 
tions would look like if the USA, the largest and most powerful coun- 
try of the capitalist world, and the USSR, the largest and most 
powerful country of the socialist world, were to establish good rela- 
tions or, still better, collaboration, which we should like to grow 
into friendship. 

I agree with Mr. Eisenhower, who once wrote that "no other 
division among the nations could be considered a menace to world 
unity and peace, provided mutual confidence and trust could be 
developed between America and the Soviet Union." 

Those words were written shortly after the Second World War, 

Khrushchev talking with executives of the Mesta Machine-Building Plant in Pittsburgh. 

in which he had played so outstanding a part. Today Mr. Eisenhower 
is President of the United States of America. Why not realize those 
good ideas? We, on our part, are prepared to do everything to ensure 
mutual trust between America and the Soviet Union, and in this way 
help guarantee peace on earth for all peoples. 

There are no serious obstacles to our two countries living in 
peace and friendship. There are, of course, ideological differences 
between our countries, but they are not an obstacle, for these differ- 
ences existed during the Second World War but did not prevent our 
being good friends. Nor should they today prevent us from joining 
forces in the struggle for durable peace on earth. We are glad that 
here, too, in the USA, people who think realistically are inclined to 
adopt the same idea. The more people of that kind there are, the 
better it will be. 

We must get to understand each other properly. We do not beg 
for peace. We only believe that peace, not war, is the natural state 
of mankind. 

In connection with my trip to the USA, there appeared in some 
countries various conjectures about the purposes of the exchange of 
visits between representatives of our countries. Some even thought 
that Khrushchev was "going to divide up the world with Eisenhower." 

I must state that such gossip is groundless and nonsensical 
People who think along these lines take a gangster's view of all 
events. They have their own way of thinking: "If youVe strong, 
grab everything you can." We, however, are people with entirely 
different principles. Our strength serves only the welfare of our peo- 
ple and of other peoples. We use our strength to ensure peace and 
universal security. It serves no other purpose. 

The exchange of visits and our conversations on problems of 
the world situation and Soviet-American relations are useful not only 
to our countries but also to all other countries. The settlement by the 
Soviet Union and the United States of America of even a few dis- 
puted problems is bound to have a beneficial effect on the entire 
world situation and on the relations between our countries and all 
other countries, large and small. 

Now I should like to share the impressions I gained today dur- 
ing my visit to the Mesta Machine Company's plant in West Home- 
stead where we met the management, the office staff and workers. 
These were excellent meetings. On the way to the plant and back we 
were to some extent able to make contact with the inhabitants of 
Pittsburgh, even if at some distance. It was a pleasure to respond 


to the friendly greetings of the many thousands of people lining 
the streets. 

Allow me to express my sincere thanks to the Vice-President 
of the Machine Company, Mr. Frank Mesta, who received us so 
kindly at .the plant Through him I would like to thank all the 
workers, engineers, technicians and other employees, who were very 
friendly to us during our visit to the plant 

We have gained a very fine impression of Pittsburgh and its 
people But our visit here is coming to an end, and Mr. Lodge, if I 
may say so, must be glad: At last that "burdensome** job that has 
fallen to his lot the job of accompanying me on my trip across 
America is coming to an end. (Animation.) 

LODGE: It has been a pleasure for me. 

KHRUSHCHEV: Thank you. In a few days you will probably say: 
"Well, my dear guest, I have great pleasure at last in saying good-bye 
to you." (Laughter.) 

(Lodge smiles and waves his hand in protest.) 

KHRUSHCHEV: And what's wrong with that? Don't you want to 
give me a good send-off ? (Laughter.) Or do you want to give me a 
bad send-off? (Laughter.) 

LODGE: You have been a good guest I regret that your trip to 
the USA is coming to an end. 

KHRUSHCHEV: Thank you. I can tell you that when you come 
to us in the Soviet Union you will see that we are not only good 
guests but good hosts as well. (Animation, applause.) 

We are very pleased with the attitude of the people of your fine 
city toward us Soviet people, with their warmth and cordiality, and 
chicly with their appreciation of the significance of my visit to the 
USA, with their understanding of the necessity of improving rela- 
tions between our states. 

Allow me to express my sincere thanks to Bishop John Wright 
who, as Mr. Lodge informed me, appealed to his congregation to 
meet me and my party in a manner befitting good hosts in order 
to create conditions for an improvement in the relations between our 

I also render my sincere thanks to the Bishop who read a 
prayer before the beginning of our lunch here today. In his prayer, as 
translated to me, he prayed that our relations might improve, that 
there might be peace among people, between our countries and among 
all nations. 

I can tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that all people in our coun- 


try, atheists and religious people alike, the priesthood of all religions 
(and in our country there are many peoples and many different 
religions) that they all have one thought, irrespective of their re- 
ligious convictions or the color of their skin, that all Soviet people 
want peace and are doing their best to ensure peace between the 
nations, peace throughout the world Our priests, mullahs and rabbis, 
like your bishops and clergy, pray to God that there may be peace 
on earth and friendship among the peoples. (Applause.) 

I should like to assure you it is easy for me to speak to you 
because many of those present have visited the Soviet Union and 
have some idea of our state and of our people and their hospitality 
that we love our country and our state just as you love your country. 
Our people love their families, their children, just as you do yours. 
As we traveled through your towns and communities we saw many 
fine youngsters. Come and visit us, our successes in that field are 
no less (animation) than in the development of industry. Our people 
are just as fond of their children, their wives and their parents, and 
are solicitous of their well-being. (Applause.) 

Your country is rich and you have achieved a high standard of 
living. When you were exhorted to pray for the liberation of the 
"slaves of communism," I said by way of a joke to Vice-President 
Nixon when we met in Moscow: 

"Take a look at how the *slaves of communism* live, talk to 
them and ask them whether they have anything to complain of." 

And now that I am your guest I should like to repeat that 
joke don't judge me too seriously I have come here to see how the 
slaves of capitalism live. And I must say that you do not live badly. 
And neither do we; we live well and we are going to live still better. 
We shall stand up for ourselves and for our country, and are sure 
that we are going to catch up with you and outstrip you. We do not 
want to increase our wealth and catch up with you by using methods 
of piracy such as were used in the past pirates never created any- 
thing, they only plundered what other peoples had created. We want 
to overtake and outstrip you by applying our own physical and 
spiritual efforts in order to create more material values than you 
create. I repeat, we are confident that we shall catch up with you 
and outstrip you. And we warn you, like honest contestants, pull up 
your socks or you may find yourselves behind us. We say that our 
riches will never be used to the detriment of any nation. In the 
interests of peace we must march in step with you, in step with all 
nations. (Stormy applause.) 


Speaking with workers at the Mesta Machine-Bwlding Plant in Pittsburgh. 

You, ladies and gentlemen, like your capitalist system. We a 
very fond of the socialist system which our people have built u 
You say that your system is better. Well, stick to your opinion un1 
you are convinced of the opposite. We tell you sincerely that tl 
socialist system is better. It provides better conditions for the devt 
opment of the productive forces and, consequently, can do mo 
for the progress of economy and culture. So far you do not adnc 
this, although the advantages of socialism have been very well der 
onstrated by the example of the Soviet Union and other countric 
Different views on the social system must not prevent us from c 
operating. You like capitalism so have it your own way live und 
capitalism, continue riding your old horse. We are mounted on 
new, fresh, socialist steed, and it will be easier for us to overtal 
and outstrip you. But this is a question of the economic competiti< 
between the two systems. If we take the path of peaceful compe 
tion, it will be to the advantage of all nations, because there will be 3 


wars between states and human blood will not be spilled. (Appl 

Allow me to thank all those who have spoken here, the Go\ 
Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Lodge and Mr. Litchfield, the Chancellor 
University, who is in the chair. I can subscribe to all the sp< 
made here today, yet there is something I should like to clarii 
one point I should like to raise about the Governor's speech - 
in general, I liked. All the speeches were well conceived an 
speech of the Governor, especially the closing part of it, was 
aptly, I might say even very cleverly, constructed. I envy yoi 
Governor, as one speaker envies another. (Laughter, applause 

At the end of your speech, Mr. Governor, you said thai 
people are united in their support of the government's policj 
the Republican and Democratic Parties of the USA display cor 
unity in defense and support of your system and your state, tha 
support the President and his foreign policy. 

Such a statement could have two meanings. I want to sai 
in my opinion, that speech may be interpreted. One meaning 
be: **Listen here, Khrushchev! (Laughter.) We have two partw 
we are one." 

God knows what difference there is between your par 
wonder if you know; I'm sure I don't. (Laughter, applause.) 1 
it more precisely, I don't see any difference between them. B 
Governor's speech might also contain a hint of this sort: "Torn 
Khrushchev, you're going to talk with our President We tc 
President: *Be steadfast! Stand firm! We are behind you.*" 

To this I can reply: "Ask your Ambassador, Mr. Thor 
and Mrs. Thompson." Mr. Thompson has represented your c< 
in Moscow for several years, and if I'm not telling the truth, I< 
correct me. Our Soviet people are united, they are rallied i 
around their Communist Party, they support their own Party, 
they believe to be the best party in the world. Our one Comi 
Party is better than your two parties. (ArdmatiorL) That's mj 
ion. What do you expect me to say? That your parties are bet 
I thought so, I'd join one of them. (Laughter.) 

Our people support their Soviet Government. Before I 1 
the USA many people said to me what you say to your Pres 
"Comrade Khrushchev, go to America, try to achieve peac 
friendship with the American people and the American Goven 
but stand firm." (Animation*) 

If we adopt this over-simplified approach and take up ad 
positions I, mine, and the U.S. President, his there won't 1 


businesslike talks tomorrow. There would be no negotiations to 
find reasonable solutions, but sheer stubborness that, to put it figura- 
tively, would be like the stubbornness of two bulls which has the 
stronger legs, which has the harder forehead, which has the longer 
horns and which can first gore the other. 

But is that what the peoples of the Soviet Union and the United 
States, the peoples of all countries, expect of us? You have strong legs, 
but ours don't bend either. So let's compete in solving disputed ques- 
tions by reason and not by force. That is what all the peoples expect 
of us. (Applause.) 

It is a pleasure for me to negotiate with a head of state who 
enjoys the support, respect and love of his people. (Applause.) I 
represent our Soviet people. I am grateful for the confidence and 
respect the Soviet people have for their Government and for me as 
the head of the Soviet Government, representing the Soviet Union, 
the great Soviet people, in your country. 

In these circumstances it will be easier for us to seek mutually 
acceptable solutions, that is, solutions acceptable to both our peoples. 
If a* 'people are not united and do not support the head of their 
state, then that head of state cannot make sensible decisions. He 
would always be looking first one way and then the other, first at 
the Democrats, say, and then at the Republicans, and then at nobody 
knows whom; for he is never quite sure whether they will support 
his position or not 

So I should like to interpret your statement, Mr. Governor, as 
a real mandate of the Americans' confidence in and love for their 
President, as a wish that he, in his negotiations and conversations 
with me should find reasonable arguments, that by our joint efforts, we 
should find mutually accepted solutions that would really guarantee 
mutual understanding and friendly relations between our states and 
a sound peace between us and among all countries. 

I came to the USA with the confidence of my people and of my 
government. And that is what will guide me during my meetings 
and talks with your esteemed President, Mr. Dwight D. Eisenhower. 

If our two countries establish relations of trust instead of mis- 
trust, and pool their efforts in the struggle to consolidate peace for 
themselves and for everybody, the peoples of the whole world will 
support us. 

Thank you. (Prolonged applause. All rise.) 

N. S. Khrushchev and his party left by plane from Pittsburgh to 
Washington at 4:38 P.M., local time. 


IN WASHINGTON September 24-27 

On September 24, N. S. Khrushchev and his party returned to 

Following are N. S. Khrushchev's speeches and talks in the U.S. 
capital September 24-27. 


In Washington on September 24, Mr. Eric Ridder, publisher 
of The Journal of Commerce, gave a dinner for N. S. Khrushchev, 
which was attended by representatives of the U.S. business and 
commercial world. The Press Group with the Chairman of the 
Council of Ministers of the USSR published the text of the talk 
held during the dinner. 

In his opening remarks Mr. Ridder greeted N. S. Khrushchev 
and thanked him for consenting to meet a small circle of business- 
men in order to exchange views on some important questions, includ- 
ing the question of Soviet-American trade. Mr. Ridder noted that 
in March, 1958, when he was received by N. S. Khrushchev in 
Moscow, he had asked him many questions and had been given 
comprehensive replies. Such an opportunity had now arisen for his 
colleagues. He was confident, he said, that N. S. Khrushchev would 
be asked many questions and that, in turn, he could ask American 
businessmen a series of questions. 

QUESTION: Do you think, Mr. Chairman, that your trip to the 
USA will help to promote Soviet-American trade? 

KHRUSHCHEV: Yes, I expect it will, but I should imagine that 
American businessmen could answer that question better than L 

REDDER: I would ask my guests to give their points of view on 
this remark of Prime Minister Khrushchev. 

PHILIP CORTNEY (President of Republic Steel Corporation) : I 
don't see how Mr. Khrushchev's trip will help Soviet-American trade. 

RIDDER: I hold a different view and believe that an improve- 
ment of political relations will help to promote business relations 
between bur countries. 


CHARLES WHITE (President of Republic Steel Corporation): 
Trade with the USSR is nothing new to us. We used to sell sheet 
steel to the Soviet Union. The Union Carbide and Carbon Corpora- 
tion used to buy ore from Soviet organizations. We have been work- 
ing with the Russians for 30 years. I want to say that today Russians 
are producing many of the goods we are making in the USA and 
that this fencing-off of markets has caused difficulties in trade. I have 
a good knowledge of the situation in the USA and of our American 
problems. We have frequent conflicts between management and labor. 
Communists are mixed up in all these conflicts. They add fuel to 
them and in that way make it difficult to adjust relations with the 

JACK STRAUS (President of R. H. Macy and Company) : An- 
other difficulty is that the American consumer does not waflt to buy 
goods coming from behind the "Iron Curtain." 

w. T. MOORE (President of the Moore-McCormack Lines): We 
have been working with the Russians since 1928. We carried large 
shipments of freight from the USSR to the USA and from the USA 
to the USSR, and are doing so to some extent today. We know the 
Russians well. Our business relations with them have always been 
good. We believe that business relations will improve with the im- 
provement of political relations, because trade always develops 
together with friendship. 

I cannot agree that Americans are refusing to buy goods coming 
from the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries. For instance, 
we transport ham from Poland to the U.S., and various goods from 
Czechoslovakia. I do not know how they are being sold in the USA 
(we are not associated with that), but I do know that their sales 
are increasing all the time. For example, the import of Polish ham 
to the U.S. has, I think, tripled lately. We also bring Soviet goods, 
caviar among them, and I would like to see more of that in the 
U.S. (Laughter.) 

CORTNEY: In the interview with Eric Ridder, Mr. Khrushchev 
said that Russia wanted to buy all the goods she needed and to sell 
those she had. But an exchange of goods and payments is always 
made by means of gold. Regrettably, the Soviet Union does not 
publish data about its gold output and gold reserves. That worries 
us, because all other countries supply this information. The lack of 
such information with respect to the USSR undermines trust and 
worries us. 


KHRUSHCHEV: I have listened attentively to your questions, 
gentlemen, and have not interrupted you. But I cannot understand 
to what extent and why commercial circles in the U.SA are worried 
and anxious over the fact that we do not publish data about gold 
reserves. In general, I cannot understand what gold has to do with 
it I must tell you that we do not value gold very highly. I could 
cite what V. I Lenin said about gold, but I do not think it would be 
the suitable thing to say at dinner. (Laughter.) 

LODGE (the US. President's persona! representative with N. S. 
Khrushchev): I am a small capitalist and I have no gold at all. 

KHRUSHCHEV: But I have. Here it is (N. S. Khrushchev points 
to two gold Hero of Socialist Labor medals), but it does not belong 
to me. When I die it will be turned over to the state. 

REMARK: You mean your family won't be able to make use of 
this gold? 

KHRUSHCHEV: It won't. But as regards gold and foreign trade, 
you can ask all the people with whom we have had dealings and 
they will tell you that we are always punctual in our payments and 
have never been in debt. Now, as regards the question asked earlier, 
When you enter a shop to make a purchase, is it customary in 

Khrushchev at the experimental station of the Department ot Agriculture in Beltsvilh (Maryland), 

your country to ask when some item or other was made and who 
made it? 

I myself bought a hat in one of your shops because I gave 
mine away to a longshoreman in San Francisco. Now then, when I 
bought this hat I did not ask who had made it and showed no interest 
in the shopkeeper's political views. I did not know that, when making 
purchases in your country, one is expected to ask who made the item 
concerned, who is the father of the shopkeeper, who is his wife and 
what their names are. That makes commerce very complicated. 
(Animation. Cries of "Quite right!") 

REMARK : But under our laws it is important where the goods come 
from. For instance, there was a time when German goods were banned. 
KHRUSHCHEV: My good tradesman, you are making a hash of 
everything trade, economics and politics. You speak of things that 
have nothing to do at all with any of the laws of political economy. 
When you could not buy German goods, you were at war with Ger- 
many. But we are not, after all, at war with you! I am sure that if 
shops selling Soviet goods are opened, your people will buy those 
goods with pleasure. I know that you have no liking for the Russian 
Revolution, as you call the Great October Socialist Revolution, but 
you do like Russian caviar, for instance, and I have noticed that you 
are ready to consume it in fairly large quantities. (Laughter.) 

STRAUS; But would you let Mac/s open a store on a reciprocal 

KHRUSHCHEV: Now that is put in a businesslike way. We are 
willing to negotiate. But are you, gentlemen? (Animation.) You must, 
rf course, understand that I am speaking of goods and not of shops. 
American businessmen can organize the sale of our goods themselves 
and extract a profit from it. The only trouble is that many of our 
goods cannot be imported into the USA at present because the duties 
MI them are exorbitantly high. 

MIKHAIL A. MENSHIKOV (Soviet Ambassador to the USA): The 
luty on some Soviet goods is three, four and more times higher than 
:hat on the same goods from other countries. The duty on vodka, for 
example, is four times higher. 

KHRUSHCHEV: I want to make one thing clear. I did not come 
lere to sell you goods that found no market Besides, we don't have 
roods of that kind in our country. We produce a lot and sell quickly. 
3ur warehouses are not crammed with stale goods. Goods make the 
rath from industry to shop and consumer in double-quick time. If 
rou don't want to trade with us, you don't have to. We'll wait until 


you yourself come knocking at our door. Let me repeat, we'll wait 
The wind isn't blowing in our faces. Go ahead, sit by the shore and 
wait for fair weather. (Animation.) We are doing excellent business 
with China and other socialist countries. We are making good prog- 
ress in our trade with India, Britain, France, West Germany and 
Italy. Our affairs are in good shape. Our economy is expanding at a 
rate which is two or three times faster than yours. We offer thanks 
to God, so to say, and go ahead with our good work. (Animation, 

G. B. MILLER (President of Allied Chemical and Dye Corporation) : 
I think that better relations between our countries and greater con- 
tacts between the peoples will enable us to improve economic 
relations as well. 

KHRUSHCHEV: Quite right I think so, too. That, is why I said 
that improved political relations will most certainly bring about an 
improvement in trade relations as well The important thing is that 
you should understand that we have not come to stretch a long hand 
into your pocket We keep our hands in our own pockets. (Laughter.) 
Even if you keep your pocket open, 111 pass by and not so much as 
glance at what you have in it (Laughter, applause.) 

The present bad trade relations between our countries are not 
an economic but a political factor. You did not recognize the Soviet 
Union for 16 years, but you traded with us. (Animation.) Now you 
recognize us, but do not trade. How much longer will this continue, 
16 years or more, I cannot tell That is your affair, reflect on it and 
decide for yourselves. 

R, T. REED (American Express Company): Greater contact be- 
tween the business people of our countries would go a long way 
toward increasing trade. There has lately been an increase in tourist 
travel between the USA and the USSR. It appears to be useful 

KHRUSHCHEV: I consider it a step in the right direction. We 
' support such contacts and will do our utmost to broaden them. 

REED: The Soviet side had agreed to let American firms open 
their offices in the USSR to promote tourism. But nothing has yet 
been done about it. I realize that that is only a detail, but I should 
like to bring to your notice that such a question exists. 

KHRUSHCHEV: I shall bear your remark in mind 

REED: Would you say that trade between our countries would 
be more successful if we had a trade agreement? 

KHRUSHCHEV: Why not? In general, why can we trade with 
others Krupp, for example and not with you? 


CORTNEY: All the same, there are many difficulties in Western 
trade with the USSR. One of these is the monopoly on foreign trade. 

KHRUSHCHEV: You are again mixing trade up with politics. The 
question of monopoly on foreign trade was resolved in our country 
42 years ago and is not subject to revision. If it is difficult to trade 
with us, you don't have to. Do business with those with whom it is 
easy for you, but the system in our country will remain unchanged. 

CORTNEY: But both you and we want to trade. 

KHRUSHCHEV: Well, we did have considerable trade with many 
American firms. With Ford, for example. And it was profitable both 
for Ford and for us. 

CORTNEY: Perhaps it was profitable for Ford but not for Amer- 
ica? (Animation.) 

KHRUSHCHEV: But the American business world is made up of 
Fords! (Laughter.) 

RIDDER: Would you, Mr. Khrushchev, tell us of the impressions 
of your tour of the USA? 

KHRUSHCHEV: I am pleased with my U.S. tour. The Americans 
are a peaceful people and, like all nations of the world, they do not 
want war. In saying so, I emphasize again that I do not divide the 
American people into business and political circles. Nor do I make 
any distinction between them and the government. Businessmen are, 
possibly, more inclined toward a peaceful development of events. 
But I do not want to dig into souls. That is a difficult thing to do. 
It is also possible that some businessmen, those who have large war 
orders, are not inclined toward a peaceful development of events. 
But that is only my assumption, I may be wrong. 

You have many politicians who are afraid that the cold war 
might end. They have made too many speeches connected with the 
cold war. They have galloped into Congress on the cold war hobby- 
horse and want to stay in the same saddle. (Laughter.) But that is 
also an assumption and I cannot say exactly how many people of 
that kind you have. 

I want to speak frankly, just as I shall report on the trip to my 
government It seems to me that the American people want to come 
to an agreement and live in peace. But apparently it will take some 
time before we build up complete trust in our relations. (Remark of 
"Thafs right!") 

Now a few words about trade. I have already said at the Eco- 
nomic Club that our economy suffers nothing from the fact that trade 
is not developing between the USA and the USSR. But if there were 


Photo shows N. S. Khrushchev chatting with journalists 
after his visit to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. 

trade, it would be better both for you and for us. (Animation. Voices: 
"That is reasonable") Everybody knows that trade utilizes the ben- 
efits of the international division of labor, the benefits of specialization 
in industry. We would not be developing the manufacture of many 
kinds of machines in our country, but would be buying them from 
you. But since there is no trade we are compelled to develop our 
own manufacture of such machines, and are doing so successfully. 
Today, for example, I was told at your Mesta Machines Company 
plant that the most powerful press made in the USA has a capacity 
of 50,000 tons, but we have made a 70,000-ton press. 

If we do not have something, we will make it ourselves. Some 
of our machines are better than yours and we are selling them to you. 
For example, you have bought a license for a turbodrill for the oil 
industry. But we would also buy machines from you. We would be 
willing, for example, to buy chemical equipment, because you have 
moved ahead in that We could make it ourselves, but that woulo\ 


take some time. For that reason, we are ready to buy that equipment 
from you and to pay for it in the way established by international 
practice. We would purchase equipment for the oil-refining industry. 

In the past we have had dealings with Du Pont We are ready 
to deal with the company today as well, if there are no State Depart- 
ment bans on this. But if you won't sell us equipment for the oil- 
refining industry, we shall make it ourselves and fulfill our plans 
fulfill them ahead of schedule. 

I must tell you that we buy chemical equipment in other coun- 
tries and it is better than yours. Last year we bought two chemical 
plants from Krupp. The Americans have also bought a similar plant 
from the Germans. We bought an automobile tire factory in Britain. 
The equipment for it has already arrived in the Dnepropetrovsk 
Economic Area and it is already being installed. We were told that 
in this field the British have outstripped you Americans. 

N. A. TIKHONOV (Chairman, Dnepropetrovsk Area Economic 
Council) : The USA does not have such improved technology for the 
production of tires. 

KHRUSHCHEV: After signing a trade agreement with Britain 
we concluded many deals with British firms. Italy is prominent in 
the manufacture of equipment for the production of artificial fiber. 
We are buying this equipment there and also in France. In short, 
all your allies are selling us what we want, and we are buying it. 
America is the only country that does not trade with us. Very well, 
we have a saying that if you sulk and don't eat your kasha you'll 
gain nothing by it. (Animation.) Please, don't eat our Russian kasha. 
That is your business. Perhaps our kasha is bad for your stomachs. 
(Laughter.) If that is so, we will not be offended. If it is profitable 
sell, if it isn't don't sell; if it is profitable buy, if it isn't don't buy. 
Such are the laws of trade. (Applause.) 

I see that Americans fear communism as much as the rabbit 
fears the boa constrictor, and are losing their common sense. Very 
well, we'll wait until you recover your senses completely and begin 
to trade. (Laughter.) 

QUESTION: Why, in spite of all this, do you adopt a lot of what 
there is in the capitalist countries? 

KHRUSHCHEV: Because we are not fools! (Laughter, applause.) 
Why should we turn our backs on useful experience? You have set 
many examples in organizing production. Ford, for instance, started 
line production. We have adopted that method and are developing 
it for the better. 


QUESTION: We are interested in trading with you. But why are 
Soviet organizations buying only sample machines? 

KHRUSHCHEV: 111 tell you frankly. If John Deere wants to sell 
us tractors and agricultural machines, that is not realistic, because 
we are making our own agricultural machines. We are buying and 
can buy, say, ten or a hundred tractors and other agricultural ma- 
chines. That is done to compare them with our machines, to see 
which are better. But why are you displeased with that? How many 
tractors or combines do you sell to a farmer? Would Garst buy a 
thousand tractors from you? I should think that not a single farmer 
would buy even as many as ten machines. He'll buy one or two, but 
we'll buy 10 or 100. The argument about samples is unrealistic. Ill 
tell you frankly that in the sense of purchases we are not interested 
in tractors, combines, aircraft or rockets. (Laughter.) We are inter- 
ested in chemical equipment, in equipment for engineering works 
and oil refineries. (Animation.) We can sell you tractors ourselves, 
gentlemen. If you like we can even sell you one tractor. (Animaticpi.) 

RIDDER: Mr. Khrushchev, you have raised the question of 
credits. What is your attitude now? 

KHRUSHCHEV: We are not asking for credits. But if American 
manufacturers want to get big orders from us, they will get them, 
provided they give us credits. I have in mind credits from firms, such 
as the English have given us. As regards government credits, these 
are evidently impossible with the present state of relations between 
countries. If credits are forthcoming from firms, we shall pay a 
reasonable interest But I stress, a reasonable interest. We shall not 
agree to a high interest 

MILLER: What is a reasonable interest? 

KHRUSHCHEV: Not more than you get from others the interest 
that operates in the world market We are not in a position where 
we have to ask for credits to help us out You are businessmen and 
can see for yourselves how fast we are advancing. Overfulfillment of 
our economic plan, by one per cent amounts to 11 billion rubles. This 
year we are over-fulfilling the plan by five per cent This means that 
at the end of the year we shall have an additional 50 billion rubles. 
At the close of the seven-year plan period, one per cent will amount 
to 19 billion rubles. I say this to illustrate the fact that we have 
drawn up a realistic plan. I have even received a letter from an 
American economist who declared that Soviet economists had calcu- 
lated the seven-year steel target incorrectly. Our target is 91 million 


tons, while according to his calculations we shall be producing 104- 
105 million tons. 

F. PACE: I make movie cameras. I have been told that your 
cameras are bad. If we taught you to make cameras, would we get 
paid for it? As you know, we make cameras better than most people, 
including the Germans. 

KHRUSHCHEV: If we got a license from you, the Soviet Union 
would pay for it in accordance with international practice. But I 
cannot agree that you make better cameras than others, including 
the Germans. Our cameras are also good 

WHITE: For normal economic relations to develop between us 
there must be trust, but there is no trust because the American 
Communists try to create all sorts of conflicts between management 
and labor. 

KHRUSHCHEV: I can be of no help to you there, my dear sir. 
You know so little about our system that it is difficult for me to tell 
you why. Is it that you want me to tell your Communists not to do 
what they are doing? 

WHITE: Yes. 

KHRUSHCHEV: If we told your Communists that, their reply 
would be: "Keep your nose out of other people's affairs." 

We would tell the American Communists the same thing if they 
interfered in our affairs. 

REDDER: Mr. Chairman, you have seen the American people and 
you have recognized that they are a peace-loving people. Did you 
have the same view before, and do you believe that the American 
Government is just as peacefully inclined? 

KHRUSHCHEV: My tour of the United States has not changed 
my convictions. I have always regarded the Americans as a peaceful 
people. As regards an appraisal of the actions of the American 
Government, that depends on concrete conditions. We must not judge 
by words but by deeds. We have submitted the question of disarma- 
ment But if you only say that you are for peace and at the same 
time have military bases around the USSR, then we'll also be forced 
to have rocket bases against you. We have submitted a proposal for 
a peace treaty with Germany. If you sign it, that means you want 
peace; if you don't, that means you are steering a course towards 
worsening relations. We want to live in peace and to trade with you. 
Trade is litmus paper it shows the state of relations between states. 
It shows whether they want to live in peace or not You do not want 
to trade with us. But why? That makes us think and puts us on our 


guard Apparently you are planning some evil. You cannot expect 
me to tell my people that you are for peace, but do not even want 
to trade in such a trifling item as herring. If I did that, the Soviet 
people would tell me that I am a simpleton and that evidently they 
need another Prime Minister. But I shall not tell the Soviet people 

If you do not want to trade tfith us, you don't have to, but end 
discrimination. So long as there is discrimination we shall have a 
thorn in our hearts. But if we find a common language on questions 
of disarmament, and if we have a peace treaty with the two German 
states, that would mean that you want to live in peace. If not that 
means you want war. Everything consists of concrete deeds. If you, 
gentlemen, think that our economy will buckle under the arms race 
you are imposing on us, you are making a big mistake. In our plans 
for peaceful economic development we have also made provisions for 
the manufacture of the armaments necessary to defend the interests 
of the Soviet Union. We want peace, but we are ready to defend 
ourselves against any aggression. 

That is what I wanted to tell you, gentlemen, in reply to your 
questions. Thank you. 

Eric Ridder, who presided, in turn thanked N. S. Khrushchev for the frank 
and useful talk. Ridder's guests warmly took leave of N. S. Khrushchev and 
wished him success in his struggle for improving the relations between the United 
States of America and the Soviet Union and among all countries of the world. 



On September 25 the Secretary of State of the United States 
Christian A. Herter gave a luncheon in honor of N. S. Khrushchev, 
Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. 

Mr. Herter proposed a toast to the Chairman of the Council of 
Ministers of the USSR and to the people of the Soviet Union. N. S. 
Khrushchev returned the toast: 


I was very glad to hear Mr. Herter*s friendly words. I fully 
agree with all he said On my own behalf and on behalf of my 
comrades, I must with all sincerity say that we are very pleased with 
the President's invitation to visit your country, are very pleased with 
our stay here and with the meetings which we had in your country. 


I must say that nothing unforeseen happened, in our opinion, 
during this trip. You think that when we object to what we do not 
agree with, we thus express our dissatisfaction. No, we simply express 
our disagreement with the point of view of others, and this is quite 

I understand your train of thought; you have a poor knowledge 
of our system. We have no less and perhaps even more differences 
and disputes over practical questions than you have. But your system 
operates in such a way that differences are presented in a more 
dramatic and sensational light 

When differences arise in considering various questions, we 
discuss matters in a calm atmosphere. Indeed, people who do not 
agree with one or another draft which is under review proceed, in 
the final analysis, from the same considerations which guide the 
authors of the draft That is why we have arguments but no sensa- 
tions arise. 

Of course, we sometimes also have differences on essential 
problems which end rather dramatically. I shall not cite any concrete 

Secretary of State Christian A. Herter shakes hands with his luncheon guest, 
Soviet Premier Khrushchev, as the latter arrives at Anderson House in 
Washington. In center is Khrushchev's interpreter, Oleg Troyanovsky. 

examples all present here know what I have in mind However, all 
this should not prevent us from improving relations between our 
countries. An agreement which would correspond to the interests of 
both countries can and should be found, if there is a desire to do so. 

At present I would like to say, and I am pleased to do this in 
such good company, Mr. Herter, that the meetings with the Amer- 
ican people have confirmed that we acted correctly in having ac- 
cepted the President's invitation, and that they have filled us with a 
hope that this trip to the United States will yield useful results. 

We, on our part, shall do everything so that the talks with the 
President, which we start today, may produce beneficial results. We 
shall do everything on our part so that, following these talks, the rela- 
tions between our countries may become better than previously. 

On returning home, I shall report to our people on the results 
of the talks, and I am certain that our people will understand us and 
approve the strivings which guided us in the talks here, that a gradu- 
al improvement of relations between the USSR and the USA will 
lead to friendship between our countries in the interests of strength- 
ening the cause of peace. 

Allow me to propose a toast to the health of President Dwight 
Eisenhower of the USA, to the American people, to our host, Mr. 
Herter, who received us so kindly, to all present (Applause.) 


The Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, N. S. 
Khrushchev, and President Eisenhower have had a frank exchange 
of opinions at Camp David. In some of these conversations, Minister 
of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, A. A. Gromyko and United States 
Secretary of State Christian Herter, as well as other officials from 
both countries, participated. 

The Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and 
the President have agreed that these discussions have been useful in 
clarifying each other's position on a number of subjects. The talks 
were not undertaken to negotiate issues. It is hoped, however, that 
the exchange of views will contribute to a better understanding of 
the motives and position of each, and thus to the achievement of a 
just and lasting peace. 

The Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and 
the President of the United States agreed that the question of general 
disarmament is the most important one facing the world today. Both 


governments will make every effort to achieve a constructive solution 
to this problem. 

In the course of the conversations, an exchange of views took 
place on the question of Germany, including the question of a peace 
treaty with Germany, in which the positions of both sides were 

With respect to the Berlin question, an understanding was 
reached, subject to the approval of the other parties directly con- 
cerned, that negotiations would be reopened with a view to achieving 
a solution which would be in accordance with the interests of all 
concerned and in the interests of the maintenance of peace. 

In addition to these matters, useful conversations were held on 
a number of questions affecting the relations between the Union of 
Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States. These subjects 
included the question of trade between the two countries. With re- 
spect to an increase in exchanges of persons and ideas, substantial 
progress was made in discussions between officials and it is expected 
that certain agreements will be reached in the near future. 

The Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and 
the President of the United States agreed that all outstanding inter- 
national questions should be Settled not by the application of force 
but by peaceful means through negotiation. 

Finally it was agreed that an exact date for the return visit of 
the President to the Soviet Union next spring would be arranged 
through diplomatic channels. 
Washington, September 27, 1959 



My esteemed fellow-traveling journalists. You will excuse me 
for this somewhat unusual form of address. Many of you have been 
traveling with me through the United States and therefore I look 
upon you as my travel companions, my sputniks. 

To begin with, allow me to make public the text of the joint 
Soviet-American communique. 

(At N. S. Khrushchev's request, the interpreter, O. A. Troyanov- 
sky, read the text of the communique in English.) 

KHRUSHCHEV: Now I would like to thank you for the work you 
have done and for your rather complete coverage of my trip. You 
have had to work pretty hard. 


I know that each of you wrote in a different way about my visit 
to the USA and about my talks with President Dwight Eisenhower. 
I have read some of your stories and I can see that they were written 
in a well-meaning spirit, with a knowledge of what was what But 
that was not always the case. Some find it difficult to give up cold-war 
methods. It is gratifying, however, that most of the journalists with 
whom I have had contact tried as best they could to be objective in 
covering our visit to the United States. 

Now, a couple of words about my impressions. I have a great 
many impressions. Today I shall speak to you as a man enriched by 
all that he has seen and heard in your great country. I had meetings 
with the President; with well-known statesmen and civic leaders in 
your country, with businessmen and ordinary Americans. Our talks 
were frank and straightforward, and that is good. All this helped us 
to understand each other better. Of course, twelve days is a short 
period to hope to see everything. But for us it has been a lot of time 
in which to learn many things and to discuss many things with 
Americans. As you know, in addition to Washington, we visited New 
Ydrk and Los Angeles, San Francisco, Des Moines and Pittsburgh. 

You are naturally most interested in my impressions of the 
meetings we had with the President of the USA, Mr. Eisenhower. 
We had pleasant talks. On all the subjects that we touched upon, 
we had a great deal in common both as regards our evaluation of 
the situation and the need to improve relations between our countries. 

Everybody realizes that it is not so easy to throw off all the 
litter that has piled up in the many years of cold war. We cannot 
count on a sudden change in the situation. The process of improving 
relations between our countries will require much effort and patience 
and, above all, the desire of both sides to achieve that end 

The Soviet Union, whose government and people I represent, 
is guided by the interests of consolidating peace and friendship 
between nations. We have made and will continue to make every 
effort to end the cold war and improve relations between our countries. 

I have no doubt whatsoever that the President is sincere in his 
desire to improve relations between our countries. It seems to me 
that the President of the USA is in a more difficult position than I 
am. In the United States the forces obstructing an improvement of 
relations between our countries and a relaxation of international 
tension are, evidently, still influential. And that must be taken into 
consideration. But I believe that, in the long run, common sense will 

indicate the right course in settling international problems a course 
leading to the consolidation of peace throughout the world. 

My meetings with representatives of the business world of your 
country showed that there is a mutual interest in reviving the rela- 
tions and ties which would be beneficial to both countries. At the 
same time, this would afford an opportunity to consider in a calm 
atmosphere the ways and means of replacing military production by 
civilian production. 

I would like to say a great deal about my meetings with workers 
and fanners, students and intellectuals of your country. I like your 
people. Just like the Soviet people, they want one thing peace and 
prevention of another war. They want to know more about the 
Soviet Union and the Soviet people in order to utilize the grand 
potentialities of our countries for the good of the people and an 
improvement of the international situation. 

I have been asked everywhere whether I like your way of life. 
Naturally, I like our way of life better. But I do not want to dis- 
appoint you and will frankly say that regardless of the difference in 
the way of life of our countries, we can work together well and 
usefully in the international arena. After all, we did have good rela- 
tions in the years of our joint war effort against the common enemy. 
And there are no insurmountable obstacles to reviving and develop- 
ing that cooperation also in the struggle for peace. 

Our meeting with the President, Mr. Eisenhower, will be fol- 
lowed by his visit to the Soviet Union. Our people will receive him 
just as cordially and hospitably as your people received me and the 
other representatives of the Soviet Union accompanying me. 

I am now prepared to answer your questions. 

QUESTION: You have called for a vast expansion of consumer 
goods trade between the United States and the Soviet Union during 
your earlier press conference at the National Press Club. Do you 
think now your visit to America will result in increased peaceful 

KHRUSHCHEV: In replying to this question, I would, first and 
foremost, like to stress, so that the gentlemen of the Western press 
would understand clearly, that the Soviet Union is not a colony. Our 
country is one of the biggest industrial powers. Its industry, economic 
potential and level of scientific and technical development enable us 
to produce all kinds of goods, both the articles needed to promote a 
rapid growth of industry and agriculture, and consumer goods. So if 
some people in the United States of America think 6f selling us 


sausages or shoes, those, of course, are not the kind of goods for 
expanding trade between our countries. Let them look for buyers of 
such goods elsewhere. We want to buy what interests us and sell 
what interests you, and this includes consumer goods and goods for 
the development of industry machine equipment, for example. 

QUESTION: Do you not think that there will be more progress 
now in the development of Soviet-American ties in the cultural field? 

KHRUSHCHEV: We shall not be behind in that respect We favor 
a broad exchange of delegations, an exchange of spiritual values, and 
are ready to do all in our power to develop Soviet-American relations 
in the cultural field on a reasonable, mutually acceptable basis. We 
would like the United States of America likewise to be ready to do 

QUESTION: Do you feel that there was any planned attempt to 
hinder your reception in America and, if so, who do you think 
planned it? 

KHRUSHCHEV: I agree with you, Mr. Schorr, with what you had 
in mind, when you were planning this question. (Laughter.) But it 
would be discourteous for a guest to point a finger at the people, 
who, so to say, forced themselves to accept, or by force of a certain 
necessity accepted, my visit I, naturally, do not imply high-placed 
persons, but speak of certain people who play quite an important 
role in the general state machine of the United States of America. 
True, not everybody favored my visit. But the persons who counted 
on preventing a good reception for me in the USA have failed. 

QUESTION: Mr. Chairman, the joint communique says both sides 
expounded their views on Berlin. Has the position of the Soviet 
Union changed as a result of your talks with President Eisenhower? 

KHRUSHCHEV: That is a very complicated question and a simple 
answer will not do. Besides, I do not know how the author of the 
question understands this problem, how he understands our position 
on Berlin. But since our position on the Berlin question has been 
expounded fairly comprehensively, the President and I exchanged 
views on this question as well and we found much in common in our 
understanding of it I think that is quite sufficient for a press con- 
ference. (Animation.) 

QUESTION: What will you tell the Russian people about the 
United States when you return? 

KHRUSHCHEV: Have patience until tomorrow. My plane arrives 
in Moscow at 3 P.M., Moscow time, and at 4 P.M. I shall address 
the people of Moscow. If you want to listen in (I don't know if my 


speech will be broadcast in your country), you will learn by radio 
what I shall tell the Muscovites. If you don't, my speech will be 
published in the press on the next day and you can read it in the 
newspapers. (Laughter.) 

QUESTION: Which questions do you-- consider the most mature 
for discussion at a meeting of the heads of government of the Great 

KHRUSHCHEV: All questions which tend to worsen international 
relations and hinder normal relations with the United States and 
other Western countries should be discussed at a conference of heads 
of government They must be resolved and the obstacles hindering 
normal relations between countries must be removed so as to create 
a wanner atmosphere in international relations, so that relations be- 
tween countries could develop in more favorable circumstances, so 
that they could improve steadily and become friendly. 

QUESTION: At the National Press Club you said that capitalism, 
being more progressive than feudalism, replaced it, and that socialism 
will replace capitalism for the same reason. What, in your opinion, 
will in turn follow communism? (Laughter.) 

KHRUSHCHEV: Having built socialism, we in the Soviet Union 
have started to build communism and are in the first stage of the 
building of communism. To one degree or another, the other socialist 
countries are completing the construction of socialism. We have still, 
if one can say so, not tried what the communist system gives people 
and society. Yet here among you is a man who demands that he be 
given a new pie. (Laughter.) Why should I look for a new pie when 
I consider the communist pie the best We shall eat it with pleasure 
and will share it with anyone who wants it (Animation.) 

QUESTION: Mr. Chairman, do you think that a summit meeting 
is now assured? When and where would you propose to hold it? 

KHRUSHCHEV: Only a director of some institution could use 
such a tone with his employees and say that everything is now ready 
as far as he is concerned and all that remains is to sign an order and 
everything will proceed as he wants it 

A summit meeting requires the consent of all the heads of 
government concerned. I therefore cannot say that everything is 
ready for such a meeting. Agreement has yet to be reached on this. 
I believe that the conditions necessary for calling a meeting of heads 
of government have already ripened. Personally, I am ready for the 
meeting to be held anywhere. It will have to be held where the 
majority of the heads of government find it most convenient So far 


as we are concerned, this is not a special question and it is not worth- 
while making a principle of it Geneva, for instance, is a good place 
for a meeting of heads of government. 

QUESTION: Has the hope for permanent world peace increased 
as the result of your talks with President Eisenhower? 

KHRUSHCHEV: I have never relinquished the hope for peace and 
have always believed that if people make an effort to ensure peace, 
peace will be preserved. After meeting with Mr. Eisenhower, the 
President of the United States, my hopes are now stronger than ever 
before, because during my talks with him I felt that he, too, is show- 
ing a concern to ensure peace just as we are doing. 

QUESTION: Do you still believe that the only way to solve thS 
German problem is to sign peace treaties with both East and West 

KHRUSHCHEV: Day follows night, and after war, peace must 
come. That is why a peace treaty must be signed. With whom? With 
the two existing German states, because there is no united Germany. 
There is no other way; at least, I can see no other. If you have some 
other solution, tell me about it I think you will not find another 
solution either. 

QUESTION: Before your arrival and during your stay in the 
United States, some people here said that you ought to be taught a 
lesson with a demonstration of American power, with a display of 
the American way of life, so as to convince you of the advantages of 
capitalism. How do you feel, Nikita Sergeyevich, after these heavy 

KHRUSHCHEV: To teach a lesson is not a suitable phrase with 
regard to representatives of the great Soviet Union. Whoever thought 
that way was not a sensible person. As regards my convictions and 
which system I think is better, this is not the suitable place in which 
to hold a discussion on that score. We are not forcing our system on 
anyone and, personally, having been in the United States, I am con- 
vinced more than ever that the holiest of holies, the best that man 
can create is socialist society, the communist system, where man is 
indeed a friend and brother to man. How do I feel after my trip? 
To put it in a nutshell: God grant that you may feel as well as I do! 
(Animation, applause.) 

QUESTION: Would the Soviet Union allow foreign observers on 
its soil at the precise moment that proposed disarmament begins, 
allow them to travel at will during the process of disarmament, and 
allow them to remain there until all disarmament is completed? 


KHRUSHCHEV: If you carefully read our disarmament proposals, 
which I expounded in my speech at the UN General Assembly, you 
will find, I think, that our position on this question is explained there 
quite exhaustively. If you like, I can repeat it Our idea is that when 
disarmament starts there should be a corresponding stage of inspec- 
tion at each stage of disarmament, that is to say, the representatives 
of the other countries should be present and there should be inspec- 
tion in the regions subject to inspection by agreement And that will 
take place throughout the process of disarmament, until it is com- 
pleted After there is complete disarmament, then inspectors must, 
of course, remain in the countries concerned to see that the disarma- 
ment agreement is religiously observed by each state. 

If our proposals are accepted and there is general disarmament, 
the question of secrecy will fall away. People will then be able to go 
wherever and whenever they please, with the exception, perhaps, 
of places where the permission of the housewife must first be asked. 

QUESTION: What reasons did President Eisenhower give you for 
postponing his visit to Russia until spring? 

KHRUSHCHEV: I shall let you in on a secret, although I have not 
asked the President's permission to do so. But he promised to listen 
hi and he will know what I shall say. For that reason I shall take 
the liberty of telling you how it happened. 

Yesterday the President kindly invited me to his farm and 
introduced me to his wonderful grandchildren. I had, so to speak, 
direct contact with them a kind of "conference." I asked them if 
they thought they could accompany their grandfather and, if so, when 
would they like to go with him to the Soviet Union. 

At that "conference/* jointly with the President's grandchildren, 
we unanimously decided that they definitely must come to Moscow. 
The question of the most suitable time for such a trip arose, and I 
must admit that I suggested that the best time for the President, and 
especially for his grandchildren, is in summer or spring, when every- 
thing is in bloom and fragrant, when no cold autumn or winter winds 
blow. Then, in a most amiable manner, we had an exchange of views 
on this question with the President and came to just such a conclu- 
sion. Therefore, do not look for fleas where no fleas exist, and try to 
understand how these questions are resolved in a human way. 

Well, I have told you how that happened. If the President con- 
siders that I, as a partner, have overstepped my authority and 


revealed some special secrets about our talks, I ask him to forgive 

I think that my grandchildren, too, will approve of our decision. 
So, if we are to speak of our grandchildren, then they are agreed that 
the visit of the President of the USA to the Soviet Union should take 
place in spring or summer, and the grandfathers also agree with this. 
(Laughter, applause.) 

QUESTION: What do you now think of the United States, of the 
American people, and o.f the possibility of peaceful coexistence and 
cooperation between the USSR and the USA? 

KHRUSHCHEV: Experience tells all nations that countries with 
different social systems must coexist, live in peace, be friends and 
develop normal relations. That has always been my position, and 
my conviction that it is a correct one is now firmer than ever before. 

QUESTION: If disarmament is effected, how many men would 
you thus release for your civilian economy? (Animation.) 

KHRUSHCHEV: This, I think, is not only journalistic but also 
overflowing female curiosity. (Laughter.) I will tell you frankly that 
if we get disarmament, and that is something we want, then all the 
soldiers, generals, officers, admirals and airmen who are now doing 
military service will go home. 

QUESTION: When President Eisenhower asked you for assur- 
ances that Western rights in West Berlin would continue to be re- 
spected, what was your answer? 

KHRUSHCHEV: The President and I have exchanged views on 
many questions and I think it is not necessary to make everything 
public. We have already made a lot public. We shall meet again and 
talk and after that again tell you what we consider necessary. How 
inquisitive you are! Have patience and we shall tell you. When the 
time comes, we shall tell you everything. 

QUESTION: Those of us who went to the USSR with Vice-Presi- 
dent Nixon were surprised at the number of young people in church. 
If there is an increasing interest in religion, what will be your attitude 
toward churches? 

KHRUSHCHEV: First, by asking that question you confirm our 
repeated statements that we have complete freedom of religion. 
Secondly, people also go to church simply out of curiosity. Generally 
speaking, curiosity is characteristic of young people. For example, 
I told the President how, one day, immediately after the war, Marshal 
Tolbukhin, with whom I had spent a lot of time at the front near 
Stalingrad, paid me a visit I had invited him for dinner. My children 


were still small then. When Marshal Tolbukhin arrived, they all 
gathered and gazed at him from around a corner, out of curiosity, 
and then said among themselves: "There, at last we have seen a 
living marshal** 

Similarly, children and young people who hear elderly people 
speak of religion, of the saints and of God, want to go and see for 
themselves what goes on in church. It is interesting to them. But if 
each young man and girl were to go to church out of curiosity just 
once, the doors of churches would never close. They would be creak- 
ing all the time with people going in and out 

Or take the case of me, a Communist, coming to your country 
now. How many people came out into the streets to see a living 
Soviet Communist! Suppose a prominent capitalist comes to the 
Soviet Union. How many people would want to take a look at him, to 
pull him by the tail, so to speak, if he has such an appendage to his 
person! (Laughter.) A very large number of people would gather, 
and there would be nothing surprising in that. 

Ladies and gentlemen, there are still many more questions and 
I would have answered them all with pleasure* but the clock keeps 
its own count I shall soon have to speak on television. Therefore, 
in conclusion, allow me to thank you most sincerely for your atten- 
. tion and to wish you success. I would ask you to spare no effort in 
ensuring good relations between our countries, so that there is friend- 
ship and peace between, our countries, so that there is peace through- 
out the world. (Applause.) 

Good-bye. Thank you. (Prolonged applause.) 


September 27, 1959 

Good evening, American friends. 

I am glad of this opportunity of talking to you before leaving 
for my country. We liked your beautiful cities and fine roads, but 
most of all your amiable, kind-hearted people. And let these words 
of mine not be taken as the guest's customary tribute of courtesy 
and respect to his host 

Those who have visited the Soviet Union will have told you 
about the very good feelings which the Soviet people have for you 
and about their wish to live in peace and friendship with you. And I 
win now take with me the certainty that you feel the same way about 
the Soviet people. I am going to tell them about it. 


I have had very pleasant talks with President Dwight Eisen- 
hower. In all matters touched upon in our conversations, we had . 
much in common, both as regards our appraisal of the situation and 
the need for better relations between our countries. 

You will realize that it is not so easy to overcome all that has 
piled up in the many years of cold war. Think of all the speeches 
that did not promote better relations but, on the contrary, aggra- 
vated them! That being so, we cannot expect an abrupt change in 
the situation. The process of improving relations between our coun- 
tries will require great effort and patience, but above all else a 
mutual desire to create conditions that will facilitate a shift from 
the present state of tension to normal relations, and then to friend- 
ship in tie interests of durable peace throughout the world. 

The Soviet Union, whose government and people I represent, 
is guided by the desire to promote peace and friendship among na- 
tions. We have always done our utmost to end the cold war and 
improve relations between our countries, and we do so now. 

I have not the slightest doubt that the President sincerely 
desires better relations between our countries. It seems to me that 
the position of the U.S. President is more difficult than mine. It 
would appear that the forces obstructing better relations between 
our countries and a relaxation of international tension are still influ- 
ential in the United States of America. And that must be taken into 
account. I think, however, that common sense will in the end suggest 
the right course in the settlement of international problems. And 
that course, the only correct course, is the termination of the cold war 
and the promotion of universal peace. 

But it takes more than two states to end international tension. 
This can only be done if all states desire it and work for it 

There can be no stability or peace in the world as long as the 
two mightiest powers are at odds. 

Picture two neighbors. Each disapproves of the way the other 
lives and runs his household. So they fence themselves off from each 
other. And together with their families, they revile each other day 
and night Is that a happy life to live? Anyone will say that it is not; 
sooner or later the two neighbors may come to blows. 

Bad neighbors have a way out, at least one of them could sell 
his house and move into another. But what about states? They cannot 
move elsewhere, can they? What is the solution then? 

You have capitalism in your country, and we have socialism. 
Must we on this account push things to the point of a world-wide 

free-for-all? Or shall we establish normal relations and live in peac 
each in his own way? Everybody in the Soviet Union wants all cou 
tries to live in peace, everybody wants peaceful coexistence. 

Have you ever given any thought to the following? Why do y< 
and we need all these armaments if we have no intention of goii 
to war? I have been told that your country annually spends an av 
age of more than 40 billion dollars on armaments. What about u 
There's been no point in concealing the fact that we spend abo 
25 billion dollars a year for the same purpose. Couldn't a better u 
be found for the people's money? 

To be sure, it is not easy for any country to accept disarmame 
unless it is certain that the others will do likewise. Every count 
has fears of being attacked 

You probably know that a week ago the Soviet Governmei 
submitted to the United Nations a proposal for general and comple 
disarmament and for the most rigid, comprehensive control. Wh 
have we in mind? We propose that all armed forces be complete 
abolished, that all weapons, including atomic, hydrogen and rocki 
weapons, be destroyed The states should retain no more than strict) 
limited contingents of police armed with small arms. But if ox 
partners should be unwilling to take measures as far-reaching as tha 
we are prepared, for a start, to reach agreement on partial stej 
toward disarmament 

We are gratified that many statesmen and political leaders ai 
giving serious thought to these proposals of ours and on their par 
are taking steps to bring about the necessary agreement on disarms 
ment Unfortunately, some people still cling to the arguments of th 
cold-war period. We should like to hope that the governments of th 
USA and other countries will take a correct view of our peacefu 
proposals and will, for their part, take appropriate steps in the sam 

We discussed this problem in detail during our conversation 
with your President The President, like ourselves, is concerns 
about the fact that so far we have not succeeded in ending the anna 
ments fever. I am going home in the hope that the U.S. Governmen 
will be able to overcome deep-rooted prejudices and that sooner o 
later, in common with all the other countries, we will find the correc 
approach to the solution of the disarmament problem. 

We have also discussed other pressing matters, of which quit 
a number have piled up these days. I will, first of all, single out thi 
problem of removing the aftermath of the Second World War. Man: 


eople ask why the Soviet Union is so concerned about the question 
f removing those vestiges. After all, ifs a thing of the distant past, 
ley argue. I will speak plainly: We are not afraid of German mili- 
uism. But we know its insidious ways and habits only too well. The 
bsence of a peace treaty creates an atmosphere which stimulates 
jvanchist sentiment Don't misunderstand me t The survivals of war 
lust not be allowed to stay if we are to have peace. 

The Soviet Union has proposed that a line be drawn through the 
econd World War. This can and must be done by signing a treaty 
dth Germany. 

The argument is sometimes used against us that since the war 
'as waged against Germany when she was a single state, a peace 
eaty can only be concluded after Germany is unified. But it is well 
nown that, at present, two German states exist in reality, and each 
f them lives in its own way. Neither of the German states wants to 
ive up its social system. And surely there can be no question of 
>rcing one German state to surrender to the other. Let the Germans 
lemselves reach agreement on how they should live, on how they 
lould shape their mutual relations. 

Would it not be best to conclude a peace treaty with both Ger- 
lan states without further delay, and thereby put out the sparks 
uried in the ashes before they set off a new conflagration? Conclu- 
on of a peace treaty would also put out the live spark in West 
erlin, with the result that a normal situation would be created. 

The question of a German peace treaty, like the disarmament 
uestion, is not an easy one. But precisely because these are difficult 
uestions, they must be settled and not shelved. 

During my stay in your country I have acquainted myself with 
le life of the American people as best I could in so short a time, 
ad have seen and heard a good deal. I am most grateful for the 
arm reception and cordiality accorded to me, as head of the Soviet 
rovernment, and to my companions. We were strengthened in the 
jnviction that the American people are striving for friendship with 
or people and that they love peace and their country. They have 
eated great riches and achieved a high standard of living. Like 
>u the Soviet people love their country and want peace. They 
ant to live in friendship with your people, and with all the other 
copies of the world. 

The peoples of the Soviet Union have made great progress, 
tanks to the victory of socialism. And though we are not yet as rich 


as you, we are on the right path that leads to the achievement of the 
highest standard of living. Our people are striving for it, and it shall 
be achieved 

The question of social and political structure, that is, whether 
to live under socialism or capitalism, is the internal affair of each 
people, and noninterference by states in each other's domestic affairs 
should be strictly adhered to. 

If all countries are guided by these principles, there will be no 
particular difficulties in assuring international peace. To live in peace, 
we must know each other better. Allow me to tell you, if only briefly, 
about our country, the life of our people and our plans for the future. 
I hope you will not misunderstand me when I say that the impres- 
sions which I have gained here, and indeed the things that I liked 
in your country, have not shaken my conviction that the political, 
economic and social mode of life in the Soviet Union is the most pro- 
gressive and just. 

The Soviet Union is a state of working people. We have^no 
capitalists. Our factories and mills belong to the people and so does 
all the land with its riches. Peasants work on that land as members 
of collective farms. Each has an income that depends on the amount 
of work he puts in, not on capital invested 

Under socialism, the remuneration paid to a worker depends 
on the quantity and quality of the work he performs for the good of 
society. When we have expanded production still more and accumu- 
lated greater wealth, we will go over to distribution according to the 
communist principle, which means that each will work according to 
his ability and enjoy the good things of life according to his needs. 

The Constitution of our state is, in fact, the most democratic. It 
guarantees universal, direct and equal suffrage by secret ballot. It 
guarantees the right to work, to education and to rest and leisure. 

Before the Revolution in our country, he who had capital was 
considered wise. For the first time in history, our country has estab- 
lished the just principle: He who works well enjoys social distinction. 

Take the composition of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, which 
is the country's highest organ of state power. There are 1,378 depu- 
ties elected to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, of whom 366 are 
women. Over 1,000 deputies are directly engaged in industrial or 
agricultural production they are workers, engineers, collective fann- 
ers, agronomists. The other deputies are statesmen, public leaders, 
scientific or cultural workers, men of letters, art workers, teachers, 
doctors. As you see, there are no capitalists in our country and no 


capitalist representatives in the Supreme Soviet Those who make 
up our government are the sons and daughters of working people. 

I will tell you about mysell My grandfather was an illiterate 
peasant He was the landlord's property and could be sold or even, 
as was often the case, traded for a dog. My father was a coal miner, 
and I, too, worked in a coal pit as a fitter. I fought in our Civil War. 
Then the Soviet state sent me to a workers* school and later to the 
Industrial Academy. Now the people have entrusted me with the high 
office of Chairman of the Council of Ministers. 

Recently, both my First Deputies, Anastas Mikoyan and Frol 
Kozlov, visited your country. Who are they? Anastas Mikoyan is the 
son of a carpenter, and Frol Ko2lov is the son of a blacksmith and 
was himself a worker and later an engineer. There is no such thing 
as inheriting capital or high posts in our country. 

All members of Soviet society enjoy genuine freedom. The only 
thing we do not have is the freedom to exploit other people's labor, 
to privately own factories or banks. 

We people of the older generation started life in a capitalist 
environment But why do we consider the socialist way more just? 
For hundreds of years mankind had developed under conditions 
where a minority appropriated the riches created by the majority. 
And always people had sought a better social structure under which 
there would be no exploitation of man by man. 

We are grateful to Marx, Angels and Lenin who blazed the 
trail to that society, and we have taken that trait And the same path 
was taken after us by many peoples of Europe and Asia. Having 
taken power into their hands, the working people put an end to the 
urge for profiting at other people's expense. Human greed is a terrible 
thing. Has there ever been a millionaire who did not want to be a 

I want to be understood correctly. It is one thing when a person 
has a pair of shoes and wants to have two or three pairs more, when 
he has one suit and wants to have a few more, or when he has a 
house and wants to build himself a better one. That is a legitimate 
desire. Socialism does not limit people's tastes or requirements. But 
it is quite another thing when a person owns a factory and wants to 
have two, or when he owns one mill and wants to have ten. It should 
be perfectly clear that no one, even if he is helped by his entire 
family, and even if he were to live more than one life, can earn 
a million", and still less a billion dollars, by his own labor. He can 


do that only if he appropriates the labor of others. But surely that 
is contrary to man's conscience. You will remember that even the 
Bible says that when they who engaged in trade turned the temple 
into a house of usurers and money-changers, Christ took a whip and 
drove them out 

That is why religious people should not oppose the new social- 
ist system if, in accordance with their moral code, they are guided 
by the principles of peace on earth and love of one's neighbor. For 
it is a system which establishes the most human and truly just rela- 
tions in society. 

To help you understand why we are so proud of our Soviet 
country, I must say a few words about our pre-Revolutionary past 
The people had a very hard life in those days. Almost 80 per cent 
of the population was illiterate. Hunger and disease killed millions 
of people. 

You will now find it easier to understand why Soviet people 
are so happy that their country has in a short time become the 
world's second greatest industrial power. We have increased indus- 
trial output 36-fold, eliminated illiteracy, and are now graduating 
almost three times as many engineers as the USA. 

Our people would still be better off today if, out of 4QL years, we 
had not spent almost two decades on wars imposed upon us, and on 
postwar economic rehabilitation. 

Do you know that during the war the German fascist invaders 
burned down or otherwise destroyed 1,710 towns and townships and 
upward of 70,000 villages, leaving about 25 million people homeless? 
We lost many millions of people and suffered material damage 
amounting to nearly 500 billion dollars. 

But for these fearful losses and destruction, we would probably 
have caught up with the United States by now both hi volume of 
output and in living standards. 

Today our people are busy fulfilling the seven-year plan. In the 
current seven-year period we will double industrial output In this 
period, we will invest the equivalent of nearly 750 billion dollars in 
the national economy. 

Today the United States is economically the most highly-devel- 
oped power. Your country's economic indices are the peak of what 
has been attained in the capitalist world. But don't forget that, on 
the average, the Soviet Union's annual rate of industrial growth is 
three to five times as high as yours. That means that in the next ten 
to twelve years we will exceed the United States both in physical 


volume of industry and in per capita output And in agriculture 
this task will be fulfilled much earlier. 

Our country is carrying on large-scale housing construction. Here 
is an example: In the past eight years alone more housing was built 
in Moscow than throughout the 800 years of its pre-Revolutionary 
history. Next year the people of Moscow will have additional housing 
whose total floor space will exceed one quarter of all the housing 
available in our capital before the Revolution. In the current seven- 
year period we will build about 15 million apartments in towns and 
7 million houses in the countryside. That is roughly equivalent to 
some 50 new towns as large as San Francisco. An important point 
is that our country has the world's lowest rent a mere 4 or 5 per 
cent of the family budget 

We are seeing to it that there are more comfortable homes and 
that Soviet people get more and better consumer goods. And we are 
as good as our word In the last six years Soviet agriculture has 
trebled meat sales to the urban population, and more than doubled 
those of milk 

It will not be long before we abolish I repeat, abolish all 
taxation of the population. I believe you fully appreciate the signi- 
ficance of this measure. 

The Communist Party, the Soviet Government and the trade 
unions are working for the welfare of all Soviet people. 

Soviet people need not fear anything like unemployment, for 
example. The term ''unemployment" is long forgotten in our country. 
In the Soviet Union, it is not people who look for work, but work 
that looks for people. 

All our children go to school In the Soviet Union tuition is free 
not only in secondary schools, but also in higher schools. Students 
receive state allowances. We give a very great deal of attention to 
the education of children. Nursery school, kindergarten, boarding- 
school, and then a start in life such is the clear road of our rising 

The merits of the Soviet educational system are widely known. 
It is the people educated in Soviet schools scientists, engineers, tech- 
nicians and workers who amazed the world with the first man-made 
earth satellites. We are proud that the Russian words "sputnik" and 
"lunik" are now understood all over the world, without having to be 

Two million teachers and almost 400,000 doctors are serving 
the welfare of Soviet people. 


We are taking care of the health of our people; the sick rate 
has sharply declined in our country and the death rate is the lowest 
in the world. Every factory or office worker is granted paid leave 
every year. The working people have the best sanatoriums, health 
resorts and vacation resorts at their disposal. Medical treatment is 
free for all in our country, and neither a minor operation nor the most 
complicated one entails any expense for the patient. Sometimes you 
don't understand certain aspects of our way of life. And Soviet people 
find it hard to understand how it can be that when you are in trouble 
because someone in your family is seriously ill and has to be operated 
on or sent to a hospital, you have to pay money for it And what if you 
have no money? What happens then must the sick man die? 

When somebody is ill in our country and cannot work, he gets 
his pay just the same. And when old age comes along he does not feel 
abandoned, for he gets a state pension. Peasants are pensioned out 
of the funds of their collective farms. 

You may ask: "Is everything really so good and smooth in your 
country?" I am afraid not, because we also have our difficulties, 
shortcomings and unsolved problems. I can assure you that we Soviet 
people are the most scathing and uncompromising critics of our own 

Esteemed citizens of the United States of America, in a few 
hours our plane will leave American soil. I wish once again to thank 
the American people, President Eisenhower and the U.S. Govern- 
ment for the hospitality and good feelings shown us. I credit these 
good feelings and the attention shown to me, as head of the Soviet 
Government, to the people of my country. 

During my stay in your country I have received thousands of 
letters and telegrams of greeting from American citizens. They 
express friendship for the Soviet people. Many of them invited my 
companions and myself to visit their homes and meet their families 
and their children. I should like to go to all the places I was invited to, 
but unfortunately that is out of the question. To do it, I should have 
to stay here a long time. And that, you will realize, is something I 
cannot do. Allow me to give my heartfelt thanks to all who extended 
their friendly invitation, to all who expressed friendly sentiments. 

Allow me, in conclusion, to wish the American people prosperity 
and happiness, and also to express the hope that our visit to the 
United States, and President Dwight Eisenhower's forthcoming visit 
to the Soviet Union, will be regarded not only by the American and 


Soviet peoples, but also by all the other peoples, as the beginning of 
joint efforts in the search for ways of bringing our countries closer 
together and promoting universal peace. 
Good-bye and good luck, friends! 


On the evening of September 27, N. S. Khrushchev, Chairman of 
the Council of Ministers of the USSR, on his departure from the USA, 
in reply to the speech of Richard M. Nixon, Vice-President of the USA, 
who was seeing him off, said: 


Our visit to the United States of America at the kind invitation 
of Mr. Eisenhower, President of the United States, has ended We 
visited various cities in your country from the Atlantic to the Pacific; 
we had many pleasant meetings and talks with Americans, with 
business people of America, political and public figures; we met work- 
ers, farmers and intellectuals. 

As a result of the useful talks we had with President Eisenhower, 
we reached a mutual agreement that all outstanding international is- 
sues should be settled, not through use of force, but by peaceful means 
through negotiation. 

When we come home we shall tell the Soviet people of our 
impressions, of the meetings and talks on American soil. The entire 
Soviet people are striving to live in peace; they want friendly rela- 
tions to be established between our great states. We are convinced 
that the American people also desire peace. 

There are quite a number of complicated outstanding questions 
in our relations; nevertheless, let us not return to the past, but 
look to the future and do all we can for that future. Let us job 
efforts to consolidate peace, to improve mutual understanding among 
all the nations of the world. 

I thank you from the bottom of my heart for the kind hospi- 
tality for your bread and salt I would like to wish that we more 
and more frequently use in the relations between our countries, the 
short and good American word "O.K." 

Good-bye, friends! 



Radiogram from the TU-114 plane 

Crossing the frontier of the United States, I beg you, Mr. Presi- 
dent, to accept, on behalf of the members of my family and the 
persons accompanying me, and also on my own behalf, cordial grati- 
tude for the invitation to visit your great country and for. the warm 
reception extended to us by you personally and by the American 
people. Our acquaintance with the life of the American people was 
extremely interesting and useful 

The exchange of opinions on most important international prob- 
lems and on questions of Soviet-American relations has shown that 
the trend toward undertaking the efforts needed to end the cold war 
and to create a climate of confidence and mutual understanding 
between our countries is on the ascendancy. Our meetings will defin- 
itely help to ease international tension and to strengthen the cause 
of universal peace. 

I thank you sincerely once more, Mr. President, and I thank the 
American people for their hospitality. We assure you that the Soviet 
people and the Soviet Government will, in turn, extend to you as 
hospitable a reception when you come to the Soviet Union. 

I wish you, Mr. President, your wife, your son and your won- 
derful grandchildren, with whom it was so easy for me to agree on 
the time of your visit to the USSR, I wish all of your family happi- 
ness and well-being. 

I wish happiness and prosperity to the entire American people. 


Chairman of the Council of Ministers of 
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 
September 27, 1959. 


Reply Radiogram 
Dear Mr. Chairman: 

I am grateful for the cordial message you sent to me from your 
plane, as you left the United States, and glad that you fdund both 


pleasant and interesting the brief visit to our country by yourself, 
your family and members of your official party. For my part, I found 
the meetings with you most interesting, instructive and pleasant 

It is gratifying to know that you feel our discussions may con- 
stitute some small step in the promotion of mutual understanding 
and the reduction of the causes of those international tensions which 
have brought us great difficulty in the past We share the hope that 
concrete and meaningful progress in the important field of disarma- 
ment can be made. Nothing could be more useful than progressive 
and mutually fair discussions in the promotion of the just and durable 
peace which I am sure the peoples of both our countries earnestly 

The members of my family join me in greetings to you and 
your family, and the assurance that we look forward to our later 
visit to your country. 

With the prayerful hope that such meetings as this will prove of 
real benefit to the world, and with personal wishes for the health and 
well-being of yourself, your family and the people of the Soviet 




IN MOSCOW September 28 




On September 28 a meeting of the people of Moscow was held 
in the Sports Palace of the Central V. I. Lenin Stadium in honor of 
the return of the head of the Soviet Government, N. S. Khrushchev, 
from his trip to the United States of America. 

The tremendous hall is filled to capacity. Over the rostrum a 
crimson streamer bears the words, "Long live the peaceful policy of 
the Communist Party and the Soviet Government!" 

In a single impulse all present rise from their seats and a storm 
of applause flares up when N. S. Khrushchev, A. B. Aristov, L I. 
Brezhnev, K. Y. Voroshilov, N. G. Ignatov, A I Kirichenko, F. R 
Kozlov, O. V. Kuusinen, A. L Mikoyan, N. A. Mukhitdinov, E. A. 
Furtseva, P. N. Pospelov, D. S. Korotchenko, J. E. Kalnberzins, A P. 
Kirilenko, A N. Kosygin, K T. Mazurov, V. P. Mzhavanadzo, M. G. 
Pervukhin, N. V. Podgorny, D. S. Polyansky, the members of N. S. 
Khrushchev's party in his tour of the USA and others appear on the 
rostrum. Also present on the rostrum is Mr. E. L. Freers, Charge 
d'Affaires ad interim of the USA in the USSR. 

Present in the hall are the heads of diplomatic missions ac- 
credited in Moscow. 

V. I. Ustinov, First Secretary of the Moscow City Committee 
of the CPSU, addressed the meeting with a short speech. 

On behalf of the working people of Moscow he warmly and 
heartily congratulated N. S. Khrushchev on the successful completion 
of his historic visit to the United States of America. 

"Muscovites, like all Soviet people, followed your trip with great 
attention and impatiently awaited every report about your meetings 
and talks on American soil," Comrade Ustinov said, addressing N. S. 


"Your trip has yet again graphically proved to the whole world 
that the Communist Party and the Soviet Government indefatigably 
and consistently work for lasting peace and friendship among nations. 
The forcible call: *Let us carry out total disarmament!' which you 
made at the United Nations to all the states of the world, is unani- 
mously upheld and approved by the working people of Moscow, by 
all Soviet people. This call meets with the most ardent response in the 
hearts of ordinary people in all lands! (Applause.) 

"Your speeches and pronouncements addressed to the American 
people contained the great truth about the first country of socialism, 
about the inspired creative effort of Soviet people, the builders of 
communism, about our people's ardent aspiration for peace. And we 
Muscovites were particularly pleased that your simple and convincing 
words were understood by ordinary Americans and found a vivid 
response among them. 

"The Soviet people are happy that your visit to the USA took 
place at a time of such outstanding achievements of our people as 
the successful launching of the Soviet space rocket to the moon 
and the completion of the atomic icebreaker, Lenin. The scientists, 
engineers, technicians and workers of Moscow are proud that these 
wonderful achievements contain a share of their modest labor. 

"The working people of Moscow are working with great inspira- 
tion for the implementation of the seven-year plan, and with their 
selfless effort they are enhancing the might of our great country. 

"Allow me, dear Nikita Sergeyevich, to express, on behalf of 
all present at this meeting and on behalf of all the working people 
of Moscow, our warm gratitude for your tireless activity in the 
name of peace and the happiness of the Soviet people and to 
assure the Leninist Central Committee of our own Communist Party 
that Muscovites will spare no effort or labor for the implementation 
of the stupendous tasks of building communism! (Applause.) 

"Long live the great Soviet people, the builders of Communism! 

"Long live the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the stand- 
ard-bearer of peace and friendship among nations!" (Prolonged 

V. I. Ustinov declares the meeting open. The strains of the State Anthem 
of the Soviet Union resound in the great hall. 

The floor is then given to Y. N. Nikolayev, a machine-tool adjuster of the 
Likhachev Motor Works. 




Expressing the sincere desire and thoughts of the many-thou- 
sand collective of the Likhachev Motor Works and all the working 
people of the capital, I convey to you heartfelt gratitude for your 
indefatigable struggle for peace and happiness of the Soviet people. 
(Prolonged applause,) 

The greatest feeling we are experiencing now, Nikita Serge- 
yevich, is the feeling of tremendous joy from the knowledge that 
you are again in our midst, on our native Soviet soil. (Applause.) 
If we may speak figuratively, we did not part with youl Our hearts 
were with you during your historical tour of the United States. We 
of the Motor Works, like the entire Soviet people, warmly applauded 
you when you put forward the bold and clear-cut plan for complete 
and general disarmament You expressed the opinion of all the 
Soviet people when you spoke of our friendly feelings for the Ameri- 
can people, and our fervent wish to live in peace with all nations. 

We noted with great satisfaction the statement contained in 
the Soviet-American Communique to the effect that all outstanding 
international questions should be decided by peaceful means, by 
negotiations, and not by use of force. 

We Soviet workers found it a matter after our own hearts when 
you, Nikita Sergeyevich, with the folk wisdom characteristic of you, 
gave in your speeches and talks a telling rebuff to those who hate 
communism and are the champions of the cold war. (Applause.) 
The workers avidly read your striking speeches and said to each 

"Nikita Sergeyevich is crushing the ice of the cold war with 
the strength of an atomic icebreaker and striking the enemies of 
peace with the accuracy of the Soviet moon rocket!" (Prolonged 

Frankly, we cannot understand those people across the ocean 
who praise the capitalist way of life and at the same time envy our 
great achievements. No fables about a capitalist paradise can muddle 
us Soviet people. We are proud of the socialist system. We are proud 
of our sputniks and the Soviet pennants planted on the moon. 

We are proud of our majestic seven-year pkn and are working 
with great enthusiasm to fulfill it ahead of time. The many thousands 
employed at the Likhachev Motor Works are making their contribu- 
tion to this nationwide cause. By September 22 the workers of the 


plant had successfully fulfilled the plan for the first nine months of 
the year and gave our country 85 million rubles* worth of goods in 
excess of the plan. (Applause.) I also am not lagging behind my 
comrades: I am topping my work assignment by 80 per cent, and 
more. (Applause.) 

Soon our plant will switch over to a seven-hour working day. 
We consider this to be a fresh and striking manifestation of the care 
the Party takes of the Soviet people. We assure the Central Commit- 
tee of our Party and the Soviet Government, that in seven hours we 
shall produce as much as in an eight-hour day. (Applause.) 

It is neither thirst for profit nor need that make us fulfill our 
plans. Work for the people, for ourselves, for our Soviet state, the 
great aim towards which we are marching communism this is what 
inspires us to great patriotic accomplishments. And I am convinced 
that the time will come when the workers of America too will know 
the joy of free labor in their own factories. (Applause.) 

Long live peace and friendship among all nations! 

Long live our own Communist Party, which is leading the Soviet 
people to the triumph of communism! (Prolonged applause.) 

U. M. Trofimova, team-leader of the Put Novoy Ztdzm Collective Farm, 
Kuntsevo District (Moscow Region), is the next speaker. 



Permit me to congratulate you from the bottom of my heart 
on the successful end of your mission of friendship and peace to the 
United States, and to convey to you the ardent greetings of the 
collective farmers of Moscow suburban area. (Prolonged applause.) 

The people at our collective farm, like all Soviet people, fol- 
lowed your tour of the United States with great emotion and deep 

We felt and realized that this was no easy tour. Besides honest 
and peace-loving people, there are other people in America who are 
opposed to a relaxation of tension in international relations. 

You, Nikita Sergeyevich, spoke to the Americans on behalf of 
your people. You defended the cause of peace with great ability and 
fervor. Your voice is the mighty voice of all Soviet people. 

Ordinary people understand who is for peace and who fears a 
thaw in relations among the Great Powers. Speaking in our own 


collective-farm language, everyone today realizes that the road to 
peace is the road to Moscow. We were pleased that the American 
people met you with warmth and expressed friendly feelings for the 
Soviet people. 

Your visit, Nikita Sergeyevich, turned out to be a good lesson 
for the capitalists. It is high time for them to understand that the 
Soviet Union is no longer that ragged Russia where the only fare 
of the poverty-ridden muzhik was thin cabbage soup with hardly 
a crumb of bread to go with it. (Applause.) No, the USSR is a 
mighty state who should be addressed as an equal among equals 
and with whom it is necessary to live in peace and to maintain good- 
neighborly relations. 

We heartily approve the proposals you submitted on the ques- 
tion of preserving peace and ending the cold war. Only our country 
could propose general and complete disarmament 

The clouds of the cold war are dispersing. Life and work have 
become more cheerful. And look what's being done! We have decided 
that the seven-year plan should be fulfilled in five years. (Applause.) 
Let the Americans see what the collective farmers are capable of. 
We assure you, Nikita Sergeyevich, that we shall hold our own in 
the competition with the farmers, that we shall catch up with 
America and surpass it in output of agricultural produce per capita! 
(Prolonged applause.) 

Facts themselves point to this. You remember, of course, Nikita 
Sergeyevich, what our collective farm was like about five years ago. 
And now? Preparing to mark the next plenary meeting of the Central 
Committee of the Party in a fitting way, we shall produce at least 
10 tons of meat and 100 tons of milk per hundred hectares of land 
(Applause.) Our collective farm has introduced cash payment for 
labor as well as annual holidays. From the beginning of next year 
we will start issuing pensions to aged collective farmers. (Applause.) 
This is how our life is changing. This is most striking proof of your 
words that the Soviet system is bringing the working people greater 
benefits than the capitalist system. (Applause.) We firmly believe 
that the future belongs to communism. (. Applause.) 

We most heartily wish you, an outstanding champion of peace 
and friendship among nations, many years of life. (Prolonged ap- 
plause.) Thank you for your great efforts for the good of the Soviet 
people and for the whole of working mankind. (Applause.) 

Long live our own Communist Party and the Soviet Govern- 
ment! (Prolonged applause.) 


The floor is given to Academician L. I. Sedov. 


Soviet scientists, like all our people, are heartily congratulating 
you on your return home from the United States of America where 
you went on a peace visit. (Applause.) 

With great attention and pride we heard your historic speeches 
in which you expressed the Soviet people's desire for peace. We 
admire the tireless energy, persistence and patience with which you 
selflessly fight for strengthening peace and friendship among the 
nations. (Applause.) 

The old methods and conceptions for solving outstanding issues 
between states by the use of force are becoming outdated. War in 
our day is a catastrophe which spells doom to tens and hundreds of 
millions of people. It is absolutely clear that war should not be al- 
lowed; it can and must be banned from the life of society. 

We are proud and happy to know that our Party, the Soviet 
Government, and our people are in the front ranks of the struggle 
for peace, and that the initiative and the main constructive proposals 
as well as practical steps, aimed at consolidation of peace, come from 
the Soviet Union. We are profoundly confident in the victory of plain 
and sensible ideas, in the possibility of peaceful coexistence of differ- 
ent social systems, in the cessation of the cold war, and in the es- 
tablishment of an atmosphere of good-will and cooperation among 

The Soviet Union's historic proposals on general and complete 
disarmament which you, Nikita Sergeyevich, made in the United 
Nations, are in accord with the vital interests and aspirations of broad 
sections of the population in all countries of the world. There is no 
doubt that there are still very many obstacles on the path to the 
realization of these proposals. Yet the things which were only a dream 
yesterday are becoming a reality today. 

It is generally known that not more than two years ago there 
were skeptics among scientists who did not believe that it was pos- 
sible to launch successfully artificial earth satellites. 

Our scientists, engineers, and workers have turned into reality 
man's age-old dreams and were the first to pave the way to space 
and interplanetary flights. We are proud to say that the first artificial 
earth satellite and the first rocket flight to the moon were made by 
the Soviet Union. 


The socialist system provides unlimited opportunities for the 
advancement of science and engineering. 

We are living in a great era and are witnesses of the fact that 
human society develops in a great measure under the influence of 
the wise policy of the Soviet Union. This gives us confidence in the 
fact that, in spite of all the difficulties, an end will be put to the cold 
war. The achievements of science and engineering will go to serve 
mankind's spiritual and material requirements. 

Dear Nikita Sergeyevich, Soviet scientists realize the respon- 
sibility they bear before their people and history, and will spare no 
effort in solving the majestic problems of construction of commu- 
nism, our country's bright and happy future. (Applause.) 

Glory to our Communist Party and thfe Soviet Government! 
(Prolonged applause.) 

Long live peace the world over! (Prolonged applause.) 

L. M. Selivanova, student of the Moscow Bauman Higher Technical School, 
made a speech on behalf of the Soviet youth. 



We feel particular joy greeting you today hi our wonderful 
capital on your return from a long and difficult trip. (-Applause.) 

If you only knew how excited the Soviet youth was during 
your stay in America! How impatiently we waited for the news on the 
radio and television, stood in long queues for newspapers, and with 
what ardor we discussed every bit of news from overseas! There is 
nothing surprising hi this, for peace and that means our future 
was at stake. 

It is a joy to live, work and dream when you are confident in 
your future. What a great happiness men will feel when all tanks, 
guns and bombs remain only on the pages of history textbooks and 
civil dress will be the only uniform worn on earth. (Prolonged ap- 

Dear Nikita Sergeyevich, on behalf of our people, you have 
clearly stated this in America, and the Soviet youth and the youth 
of the globe is grateful to you for defending with such fortitude 
and so passionately its future from the threats of a new war. 

It makes us laugh when we learn that there are still people on 
earth who assert that we are intending to wage war against some- 


body. There is, indeed, a militant spirit in the Soviet youth! We are 
storming and will continue to storm nature's most treasured secrets, 
the severe ice of the polar regions and the stellar voids of the uni- 
verse. The fire in our hearts helps to light new blast furnaces, build 
new power stations, plants, towns in the Siberian taiga, so as to make 
man's life happier. Our new space rockets carry to the distant stars 
our daring dreams of the future. (Prolonged applause.) 

Our youth has many friends in all countries and we would 
like to see among them ever-growing numbers of young Americans. 
The difference in our ideologies should not prevent us from living 
in peace, having sport-competitions and meeting each other at festi- 
vals and on tourist routes. 

We are not imposing our ideas on anyone, but we are firmly 
convinced that our system is the most progressive and the most 
humane in the world, and that the future belongs to it, and not to 
capitalism. There is nothing that can shake this assurance in us! 

The main thing which will not be obscured in us is our love 
for the land of the Soviets, Soviet freedom, Soviet flag and Soviet 
sun! (Prolonged applause.) 

We have been reared in this spirit by the Communist Party 
which opened for us broad horizons and gave us wings for daring 
flights into the future. Learning today the fundamentals of science, 
we students, like all Soviet youth, make our contribution to the ful- 
fillment of the great plans mapped out by the Party. 

We assure you, Nikita Sergeyevich, our own Party, and all 
Soviet people, that we shall always and everywhere act as most loyal 
and tireless fighters for the great cause of communism, as did Com- 
munists, our fathers and older brothers. (Prolonged applause.) 

Glory to our wise Communist Party! (Applause.) 

May there be stronger friendship between Soviet youth and 
youth of all countries in the struggle for peace! (Prolonged applause,) 

The next to take the floor was N. S. Khrushchev. The participants of the 
meeting, standing, greeted the head of the Soviet Government with stormy, pro- 
longed applause. 



We have just stepped off the plane which made a nonstop 
flight from Washington to Moscow. (Applause.) We have come 
straight here to this meeting, dear Muscovites, in order to share our 


impressions with you and to tell you about the results of our stay in 
the United States of America, which we visited at the invitation of 
President Dwight D. Eisenhower. 

In accepting that invitation, we were prompted by the con- 
sideration that the international situation and the relations between 
our states our two Great Powers, the Soviet Union and the United 
States have for a long time been strained. To preserve such a state 
of affairs would mean to preserve a situation in which there may be 
a)l kinds of surprises fraught with grave consequences for our peoples 
and for the peoples of the whole world That is why the more far- 
sighted statesmen in a number of countries have come to realize 
the need to make some effort to put an end to the cold war, to 
remove the tension in international relations, clear the atmosphere 
and create more or less normal relations between states. The peoples 
could then live and look to the future without fear. The Twentieth 
Century is one in which human intellect and talent have attained 
the greatest heights. In our day, the dreams mankind cherished for 
ages, dreams expressed in fairy-tales which seemed sheer fantasy, are 
being translated into reality by man's own hands. How, then, in this 
age of flourishing human genius that is fathoming nature's secrets 
and harnessing her mighty forces, can one reconcile oneself to the 
preservation of the primitive relations between men that existed when 
men were no more than beasts? 

If such relations in the remote past may be explained by the 
fact that man was still at the initial stage of his development and 
little different from animals, then today, when man has reached such 
heights of scientific knowledge and is step by step subduing the 
forces of nature, compelling them to serve the needs of society 
today there can be no justification for preserving the kind of relations 
that existed among primitive men. 

Our time can and must become the time of the triumph of great 
ideals, the time of peace and progress. (Prolonged applause.) 

The Soviet Government has long since perceived this. And that 
is why we have repeatedly proposed to the Great Powers to organize 
a meeting of the heads of government in order to exchange views on 
urgent international issues. When we made these proposals, we be- 
lieved in the power of human reason. We believed that, with a 
rational approach, representatives of different political views, of 
states with different social systems, could in the interests of peace, 
find a common language in order to arrive at correct solutions to 
the problems agitating all humanity today. In our age of tremendous 


technological progress, in circumstances where there exist states with 
different social systems, international problems can be successfully 
solved only on the basis of the principles of peaceful coexistence. 
There is no other way. Those who say that they do not understand 
what peaceful coexistence is, and are afraid of it, are wittingly or 
unwittingly helping to further the cold war whiclris bound to spread 
unless we intervene and stop it It will reach a point of such intensity 
that a spark may at any moment set off a world conflagration. In 
that war much will perish. It will be too late to discuss what peaceful 
coexistence means when such terrible means of destruction as atomic 
and hydrogen bombs, and ballistic missiles, which practically cannot 
be intercepted and can carry nuclear weapons to any point on the 
globe, go into action. Not to reckon with this, means to close one's 
eyes and stop one's ears, to hide one's head in the sand as the ostrich 
does at the approach of danger. If we humans imitate the ostrich and 
hide our head in the sand, then, I ask you, what is the use of having 
a head if it is incapable of averting the danger to life? (Prolonged 

No, we must show human reason, we must have faith in the 
human intellect, faith in the possibility of achieving agreement with 
statesmen of different countries and in combining efforts^to mobilize 
people for the task of averting the threat of war. We must have the 
courage and determination to act in defiance of those who persist in 
continuing the cold war. We must stop it from spreading, melt the 
ice and normalize international relations. 

From this lofty rostrum, before you Muscovites, before my whole 
people, my government and Party, I must say that President Eisen- 
hower displayed wise statesmanship in appraising the present world 
situation, displayed courage and determination. (Stormy applause.) 
Notwithstanding the complex situation prevailing in the United 
States, the President, a man who enjoys the absolute confidence of 
his people, proposed an exchange of visits between the heads of 
government of our two countries. We give him due credit for this 
important initiative aimed at strengthening the cause of peace. 
(Prolonged applause.) In taking this step, he was confident that we 
would accept the hand he proffered us, inasmuch as we have re- 
peatedly addressed both President Eisenhower and other heads of 
government to that effect And the President was not mistaken. 

Dear comrades, it gives me great satisfaction to report to you 
that we have fulfilled part of our arrangement with President Eisen- 

hower concerning the exchange of visits. At th6 Presidents kind invi- 
tation we have visited the United States of America, where we have 
had some important meetings and talks. 

I would like to share with you my impressions of that visit and 
to tell you briefly of its results. I believe it will be best to tell you 
exactly what happened. The more candid our account, the better it 
will be for strengthening relations between the peoples of our two 
countries. (Applause.) It would not be true if I were to say that our 
tour of some American cities, and our meetings and talks with many 
Americans have ironed out all the controversial issues. Only a politi- 
cally blind man could expect that whatever he says will be done. 

No, in order to settle such important questions, one visit, one 
trip is not enough. Much effort is required. It will take many more 
meetings before complete mutual understanding is achieved, before 
we reach the goal which our Party, our people and our Soviet Gov- 
ernment have always pursuedto ensure peaceful coexistence be- 
tween states with different social systems, and to safeguard the 
security of the peoples on the basis of noninterference in internal 

I would like to tell you how we felt when we first set foot on 
American soil. 

Frankly speaking, rny own feelings were somewhat mixed. The 
reason for this was that as soon as the first reports of the coming 
exchange of visits appeared, many press organs and some United 
States spokesmen launched a propaganda campaign against my com- 
ing to the United States. The atmospheric conditions they created 
did not warm me, although the temperature in the United States is 
much higher than in Moscow. They wanted to meet me with a cold 
shower. I was particularly disappointed when, hi the plane en route 
from Moscow to Washington, I read a speech by Vice-President 
Nixon timed to coincide with my arrival. He chose an audience 
which could hardly be suspected of being bellicose. He was address- 
ing an association of dentists. (Animation.) However, Mr. Nixon's 
speech was far from medicinal in content (Laughter.) He, so to 
speak, added a chill to the toothache. One would think he was afraid 
of the atmosphere really turning warmer, of the cold war really 
ending. I cannot understand why this was necessary. 

However, when we arrived in Washington we were accorded a 
reception worthy of our great country, our great people. (Prolonged, 
stormy applause.) We must give due credit to President Eisenhower 
for having done everything appropriate for a meeting at such a level. 


(Applause.) You probably read the newspaper reports about the 
reception in the U.S. capital and the President's speech on that occa- 
sion. I shall not repeat all that It was a warm reception. 

Shortly after our arrival in Washington, the President received 
us at the White House. The Vice-President, Mr. Nixon, and the 
Secretary of State, Mr. Herter, were present I am a rather restless, 
straightforward sort of person, and although it may not have been 
altogether diplomatic of me, I asked at our very first meeting why 
the Vice-President had to make such a speech on the eve of my visit, 
not to mention the unfriendly statements and articles by people of 
lesser rank. 

The President said he had not read Nixon's speech. I told him 
he need not bother to read it, since it was already past history. 

This is a little detail that gives some idea of the preparations 
made to meet the visitor from overseas. (Animation.) 

Here is another. You Muscovites, and not only you, but all 
Soviet people Russians, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Uzbeks, Geor- 
gians, Kazakhs, Armenians all our peoples alike, always give a guest 
a proper welcome. No matter what country he may come from, what- 
ever his political views, once he is our guest we put our bread and 
salt on the table and show him not only formal, but sincere respect 
(Applause.) Here is what I witnessed on my first day there, in the 
United States: As we drove with the President through the streets 
lined with crowds, I noticed that here and there someone would 
raise his hand and wave, but the next moment the hand would drop 
abruptly as though it had touched a live wire. (Laughter.) 

I could not understand it at first And so I decided to look more 
closely at the faces of the people lining the route. I began to nod to 
them in greeting, and many of them nodded in response. Now what 
was the trouble? 

Later I was told that ten minutes before we drove through with 
the President to the White House, an automobile had passed along 
the route carrying a poster inscribed to the effect that the guest 
should be met with dignity and politeness, but without applause or 
greetings. (Animation.) 

Afterwards I asked Mr. Lodge, the President's personal repre- 
sentative accompanying me on my tour of the United States, whether 
this was true, and was told that a car with such a poster had indeed 
passed along the route, but whose car it was no one seemed to know. 
(Laughter.) It was said to have broken through the police guard. 


When I was given this explanation by official spokesmen, I told them 
I could not imagine how the police, who were guarding me so well, 
could have failed to notice a car carrying a poster of that sort 

I am convinced that the President knew nothing of all this and 
that it was all done without the knowledge not only of the President 
but of the others who organized our reception. But, as the saying 
goes, you cannot take a word out of a song. 

From the moment we set foot on American soil I was so well 
guarded that it was quite impossible for me to come into contact 
with rank-and-file Americans. Police protection developed into a sort 
of house arrest (Animation.) I was driven around in a closed car, 
so that I could catch glimpses of the people who came to greet us 
only through the window. And the people greeted me, even though 
they could not always see me. 

I am far from suggesting that all the friendly feelings expressed 
by the American people were addressed to me personally or even to 
our communist ideology. By their greetings, the Americans were 
telling us that they, like ourselves, stand for peace and friendship 
between our peoples. (Stormy applause.) 

I shall not give you a detailed account of all our meetings with 
the Americans. You have no doubt read about them in the papers. 
We spent some time in Washington, then in New York, where I had 
the honor to submit on behalf of the Soviet Government from the 
rostrum of the United Nations a plan for general and complete 
disarmament. (Stormy applause.) 

From New York we went to the West Coast of the United 
States, to Los Angeles and San Francisco, and from there to the state 
of Iowa, and to Pittsburgh, the big industrial center of Pennsylvania. 
And, finally, we returned to Washington. It was quite an extensive 
tour. We visited various parts of the United States, and met all sorts 
of people. We had many very good meetings and frank talks. But 
there were meetings of a different nature, too. 

During the first half of our tour, we could not help noticing that 
one and the same story was repeated each time. Speakers claimed 
that I had once said that we would "bury the capitalists." At first I 
patiently explained what I had actually said, that we would "bury 
capitalism" in the sense that socialism would inevitably replace that 
moribund social system, just as in its time capitalism had replaced 
feudalism. But as time went on, I saw that the people who persisted 
in repeating this sort of question did not really need any explana- 


tions. They were pursuing a definite purpose, namely, to use the 
communist bogey to frighten people who have only the vaguest 
notion of what communism is. 

At a reception in Los Angeles, at which the Mayor, who is no 
worse than other mayors though perhaps less diplomatic, again began 
to speak in this spirit, I felt compelled to speak my mind 

I said to them: Do you intend to make an unfriendly demon- 
stration in every city and at every gathering? Very well, if that is 
how you are going to receive me, then, as the Russian proverb says, 
"From the stranger's gate, the road home is straight" (. Applause.) 
If you are not yet ripe for talks, if you haven't yet realized the need 
of ending the cold war and fear its termination, if you want to go 
on with it, we can wait. The wind isn't blowing in our faces either. 
We have the patience to wait, and the wisdom. Our country is getting 
along fine. Our people have more than once shown wisdom, strength 
and determination, and such capacity to surmount difficulties that 
they can stand up for their country and for the cause of peace. 
(Prolonged applause.) They will be able to give a fitting answer if 
the aggressive forces should try to probe us with their bayonets* 

I was obliged to start diplomatic negotiations on this score. I 
asked Comrade Gromyko, our Minister of Foreign Affairs, to go and 
tell Mr. Lodge, the President's representative accompanying me, 
that unless the matter was rectified I could not continue my tour 
and would be obliged to return to Washington, and thence to Moscow, 

All this evidently had its effect. Mr. Lodge conveyed to me 
through Gromyko that he advised me to continue with the program 
and to go on to San Francisco and other cities, and that the local 
authorities would see to it that this would not happen again. 

I must tell you that the talks through Comrade Gromyko took 
place at night, and when I woke up in the morning everything had 
indeed changed. When we left Los Angeles for San Francisco, the 
"handcuffs'* figuratively speaking, were removed and I was able to 
get out of the train and talk to people. (Applause.) People shook my 
hand and I theirs, and they applauded and smiled, exactly as 
you Muscovites do when you meet a guest, because you are glad to 
see him and wish to do your best to make him feel that he is welcome. 

When we arrived in San Francisco, the sun was shining, it was 
a beautiful day, like our own summer day. The climate of this 
wonderful city was quite different, the sun's rays warmed us, but 


warmer still to us was the cordial, unconstrained reception we were 
given. (Applause.) 

We are very grateful to Mr. Christopher, the Mayor of San 
Francisco, to Mr. Brown, Governor of California, to the people of 
San Francisco, to all those who showed an understanding of our 
visit a visit of peace and friendship between our nations, between 
the peoples of all countries. (Applause.) 

We were given every opportunity to meet and talk to ordinary 
people. True, the physical possibilities were limited, but that was 
due to the brevity of our visit To tell the truth, my suspicions con- 
cerning the ill intentions of the local authorities were dispelled. We 
at once established good contact with the inhabitants of that large 
and beautiful city. 

I want to make special mention of my meeting with the long- 
shoremen. Mr. Bridges, the leader of the Pacific Longshoremen's 
Union, invited me and my companions to come and talk to the 
workers. That was a most cordial meeting. Among the longshoremen, 
simple and sincere folk, I felt as if I were among our Soviet workers. 
(Applause.) The greetings I conveyed to them on behalf of Soviet 
workers were met with enthusiasm, and they asked me, in turn, to 
convey their hearty greetings. (Stormy applause.) 

I also recall our visit to the computer plant in San Jose, near 
San Francisco. The manager of the plant, Mr. Watson, and the 
employees gave us a warm welcome, and acquainted us in detail 
with the complex production processes. The explanations were given 
in Russian a mark of consideration which it is particularly pleasant 
to note. The plant itself, the layout, and the organization of produc- 
tion, made a good impressioa 

I observed that one of the men who was showing us around the 
plant spoke Russian with a Ukrainian accent and I asked him in 

"What is your name?" 

"Marchenko," he replied. 

"Glad to meet you," I said "Are your parents living?" 

"Yes," he answered. 

"Give my regards to them." 

He thanked me. 

But our stay in hospitable San Francisco came to an end, and 
we had to continue our journey by plane to another American city, 
Des Moines, in the state of Iowa. Des Moines is one of the principal 
agricultural centers of the United States. 


After a cordial reception by the Governor of the state, the Mayor 
of the city, and representatives of the business community and public 
leaders, we drove out to the corn fields so dear to my heart (Ani- 
mation, applause.) I must say that the Americans know how to grow 
corn. It is planted everywhere in squares and the fields are in good 
condition. True, there too, in the fields of the leading corn expert 
himself, my old acquaintance Garst, I found a few shortcomings. 
(Laughter, applause.) His corn was crowded in clusters, and I drew 
his attention to that fact in a friendly way, of course. 

We were shown great hospitality by our host, Mr. Garst, who 
arranged an interesting meeting for us with the farmers. We met 
Adlai Stevenson there the prominent Democratic Party leader who 
had come from Chicago, and we had a most frank and friendly talk 
with him. 

I recall this episode. When we visited the local college, one of 
the young people gave me a copy of the students' newspaper. It 
contained a long article in which, I was told, the students welcomed 
our arrival The article, however, said that the students would meet 
us without enthusiasm or cheers. Yet those very students in whose 
name the article had been written those lively, eager young people 
showed exactly the same sort of enthusiasm as our own youth. 
They shouted, and applauded, and expressed their feelings most 
vociferously. I heard them shout: "Tovarishch Khrushchev!" "NikitaP 
and other simple, friendly words. (Animation, applause.) 

I must also tell you about the warm welcome we were given by 
the inhabitants of Pittsburgh one of the biggest industrial centers 
of America, the city of steel-makers and machine-builders. They 
showed us great friendliness and respect. I even felt a trifle awkward 
as I drove from the airfield. We arrived in Pittsburgh at midnight. 
It was a dark night, yet all along the road people stood beside cars 
and I saw their smiles and heard their words of welcome. 

In Pittsburgh we visited the Mesta Company's machine plant 
We felt that the plant management had done their best to show us 
the plant and to enable us to acquaint ourselves with working condi- 
tions. We went through the plant and talked with the workers. I 
would like to mention one detail: When we first arrived we were 
greeted, but with restraint However, the longer we were with the 
workers, the warmer the atmosphere grew. The workers enthusiasti- 
cally expressed their respect for us representatives of the Soviet state 
and Soviet people. 

I also remember the meeting I had with Pittsburgh businessmen 


md intellectuals at the local university. There was the usual dinner 
ind speeches, but speeches which seemed to me to display a more 
ealistic understanding of the need for amicable relations between 
>ur countries. 

Hearing me speak now, some people may be thinking: Khrush- 
rhev is speaking only of the friendly meetings, he says nothing about 
he hostile demonstrations. No, I do not intend to hush up the fact 
iiat there were instances of hostility and unfriendliness towards us. 
es, there were such instances. I must tell you that just as the Amer- 
can newspapermen accompanied me throughout my tour of the 
United States, so did some fascist-minded refugees from different 
:ountries, who went with us from town to town, parading a few 
niserable posters. We also saw grim and morose American faces. 

There was a great deal that was good, but one must not forget 
:he bad either. The little worm, or rather the great big worm, is still 
ilive and is liable to show its vitality in the future. 

Why do I speak of this? Is it in order to cool relations between 
the Soviet Union and the United States? No. I mention this because 
it is necessary to know the truth, because you must see not only one 
>ide, the pleasant side, but also the other, the backstage side which 
should not be hidden. In America there are forces which are operat- 
ing against us, which are against lessening tension and for preserving 
the cold war. To close one's eyes to this fact would be to display 
weakness in combating these evil forces, these evil spirits. No, they 
must be dragged out into the open, exposed and publicly flogged, 
they must be roasted like devils in a frying pan. (Laughter, prolonged 
applause.) Let those who wish to continue the cold war fume. No 
ordinary people anywhere in the world, no sensible human being will 
support them. (Applause.) 

Our visit to Pittsburgh rounded out our tour of the United 

In winding up my account of our tour I should like to express 
Dur sincere thanks to the mayors of the towns and the governors of 
the states we visited, to the representatives of the business world and 
:o the intellectuals, to the personnel of the factories and universities, 
:o workers and farmers, and to all the representatives of public organ- 
zations. I particularly want to express my appreciation of all that 
vas done for us by the Mayor of New York, Mr. Wagner; the Mayor 
)f San Francisco, Mr. Christopher; the Mayor of Pittsburgh, Mr. 
Gallagher; the Governor of Pennsylvania, Mr. David Lawrence; the 
Chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh, Mr. Litchfield; the Presi- 


dent of Iowa State College of Agriculture and Mechanical Arts, James 
Hilton; the representatives of the business world Eric Johnston, Rob- 
ert Bowling, Cyrus Eaton, Thomas Watson, Frank Mesta, Roswell 
Garst; and others. (Applause.) 

The numerous gifts we received were a splendid token of respect 
for our country and for its great people. The Mayors of New York 
and Pittsburgh presented us with a medallion of New York and the 
key of Pittsburgh. 

I said, by the way, that I was accepting the key as a symbol 
of trust, "And you can rest assured," I said, "I promise you, that this 
key will never be used without the hosts' permission.** (Prolonged 

International Harvester Company presented us with a film 
dealing with the mechanization of corn production; President Eisen- 
hower gave a pedigree heifer from his private farm; Admiral Strauss, 
a steer and a heifer; and farmer Coolidge, a pedigree hog. Many other 
gifts were presented, for which we are grateful and appreciative. 

I would like to say that the American press, radio and television 
gave extensive, and on the whole correct, objective coverage of our 
visit to the United States. There were, of course, some unfriendly 
attacks on the part of individual journalists, but it was not they who 
set the tone in the American press. 

My comrades and I were accompanied on our tour of the United 
States by the President's personal representative, Mr. Lodge; Mr. 
Buchanan, Chief of the Protocol Division of the State Department; 
Mr. Thompson, U.S. Ambassador to the USSR; their wives; and 
other officials. I would like to thank them all, and especially Mr. 
Lodge. He did his best to create the necessary conditions for us on 
our tour and to acquaint us with the life of the great American 
people. (Applause.) 

I remarked in jest to Mr. Lodge that if he, a representative of 
the capitalist world, and I, a representative of the working class and 
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, were to be cast away on a 
desert island, we would probably find a common language and would 
be able to coexist peacefully. (Animation, prolonged applause.) Why 
could not states with different social systems coexist? Our countries 
are also on an island, as it were; after all, with modern means of 
communication which have brought continents closer together, our 
earth indeed seems like a small island, and we ought to realize that 
And once the need for coexistence is realized, it is necessary to pur- 


sue a peaceful policy, to live in friendship and not to brandish weap- 
ons but to destroy them. (Applause.) 

Comrades, on September 25 I met the President again in the 
White House and together we flew by helicopter to Camp David, his 
country residence. We spent September 25, 26 and 27 there. We held 
frank and friendly talks, set forth the positions of our governments 
on vital international issues and also on questions of improving 
Soviet-American relations. Mr. Herter, the U.S. Secretary of State, 
and Comrade Gromyko, the USSR Foreign Minister, as well as other 
comrades in my party took part in these meetings and talks and did 
useful work. 

The principal result of our exchange of opinions is given in the 
joint communique which has been published today in the press. There 
can be no doubt that this document will be received with satisfaction 
by all who are interested in strengthening peace. (Prolonged 

It should be borne in mind, however, that naturally the President 
and I could not at one sitting clear away all the accretions of the 
cold war that have piled up in the course of many years. It will take 
time to sweep away that rubbish and, not only to sweep it away, but 
to grind it to dust Certain things that divide us are still too fresh. 
It is sometimes difficult for some leaders to discard old positions, 
old views, old definitions. 

But I can tell you in all frankness, dear comrades, that as a 
result of my talks and discussions of concrete questions with the 
U.S. President, I have gained the impression that he sincerely wishes 
to see the end of the cold war, to create normal relations between 
our countries and to help improve relations among all countries. 
(Stormy applause.) Peace today is indivisible, it cannot be secured 
by the efforts of two or three countries alone. Hence it is necessary 
that all nations, all states participate in the fight for peace. 

The President and I exchanged views on the question of dis- 
armament He stated that the Government of the United States was 
studying our proposal and that the United States, like ourselves, 
wants total, controlled disarmament 

It would seem that there are, at present, no reasons for delaying 
settlement of this question. But, on the other hand, disarmament is 
too serious a question for one to expect one's partners to settle it 
hastily, right off the bat It must, of course, be studied with a view 
to finding a solution that would really create confidence and ensure 
disarmament and the peaceful coexistence of states. 


So let us not be hasty in our judgement, let us be patient and 
give the statesmen time to study our proposals. But we will not be 
idle, we shall continue to urge the need for complete and general 
disarmament. (Applause.) We regard our proposals as a basis for 
agreement We are prepared to discuss any amendments to our 
documents, to our proposals. We are prepared to discuss any other 
proposals that may be made if they are directed towards the same 
aims as those we pursue. 

The President and I also exchanged views on the German 
question, on the question of concluding a peace treaty. We tried to 
show him, and I believe we succeeded, that our proposals for a peace 
treaty had been incorrectly interpreted in the West Some people 
had sought to whip up undue passions by claiming that this was an 
ultimatum, and so on. Those who did so were clearly prompted by a 
desire to prolong the cold war. They went so far as to declare that 
our proposals for a peace treaty with Germany were little short of 
a declaration of war. To think that anyone could distort the peaceful 
stand of the Soviet Union in such a fashion! 

We also exchanged views, on holding a meeting of heads of 
government We both outlined the positions of our governments and 
agreed that such a meeting is necessary and useful 

We exchanged opinions on the date of President Eisenhower's 
return visit to the Soviet Union. At first the President intended to 
come to the USSR in the latter part of October. However, he asked 
me what time of the year was best for touring our country. That 
made me think We Muscovites like Moscow at all seasons of the 
year. But, like all people, we find spring, the season of joy when 
nature awakens to life, pleasantest And so I said that it would per- 
haps be best if he came later in May or early in June. And it would 
be good if the President would bring along his wife, his son and 
daughter-in-law, and his grandchildren. We would also be glad to see the 
President's brother, who has been to our country with Mr. Nixon. 

The President was kind enough to invite me to his farm. He 
showed me his com I couldn't very well visit the President without 
having a look at his corn, could I? (Animation.) He showed me his 
calves and his steers. Fine animals. True, I must say that the Eisen- 
hower farm is rather small for the President of such a huge and 
wealthy state. It is not a rich farm and the soil is not very good 
But the President said that he wants to work to improve the land 
and thereby leave behind a good memory of himself. 


At the farm I met the President's grandchildren and had a con- 
ference with them. (Laughter.) I asked them if they would like to 
go to Russia And all of them, from the youngest to the eldest, de- 
clared that they wanted to go to Russia, to Moscow. The eldest 
grandson is eleven, the youngest granddaughter is three or four. 
I won their support. I remarked jokingly to the President that it was 
easier to agree on a return visit with his grandchildren than with 
himself (laughter, applause), because his grandchildren have a good 
environment, whereas he evidently has some obstacles to contend 
with which prevent him from realizing his wishes as and when he 
wants to. (Applause.) 

I would like to tell you, dear comrades, that I have no doubt 
that the President is prepared to exert his efforts and his will to bring 
about agreement between our countries, to create friendly relations 
between our two peoples and to settle pressing problems in the in- 
terest of a durable peace. (Applause.) 

At the same time, it is my impression that there are forces in 
America which are not operating in the same direction as the Presi- 
dent These forces stand for continuing the cold war and the arms 
race. Whether these forces are great or small, influential or uninflu- 
ential, whether the forces backing the President and he has the 
support of the absolute majority of the American people can win, 
are questions I would not be too hasty to answer. 

Time is a good counsellor, or as the Russians say: "The morning 
is wiser than the evening." That is a wise dictum. Let us wait until 
morning, the more so since we have arrived by plane at the end of 
the day and it is now evening as I speak here. And perhaps more 
than one morning will pass before we will be able to tell for sure. 
But we shall not sit with our arms folded and wait for the dawn, 
wait to see which way the arrow of international relations will point 

We, for our part, will do everything we can to ensure that the 
barometer points not to "storms" or even to "change," but to "fair." 
(Prolonged applause.) 

I am confident, comrades, that in the present circumstances, 
when the forces of peace have grown immeasurably, when the socialist 
camp numbers nearly one billion people and possesses enormous 
productive capacities, when the Soviet Union has such vast achieve- 
ments in industry and agriculture, science, engineering and culture- 
we can do a great deal for peace. 

In our actions we base ourselves on reason, on truth, on the 
support of the whole people. Moreover, we rely on our mighty poten- 


tiaL And those who wish to preserve the cold war with a view sooner 
or later to turning it into a hot war had best know that in our time 
only a madman can start war, who himself will perish in its flames. 

The peoples must strait-jacket such madmen. We believe that 
statesmanship, that human reason will triumph. (Applause.) In the 
splendid words of Pushkin, "Let reason triumph! May darkness be 
banished!" (Prolonged applause.) 

Dear comrade Muscovites! We are boundlessly happy to be 
home again, to see the dear faces of Soviet people. (Applause.) 

Long live the great Soviet people who are successfully building 
communism under the leadership of the glorious Party of Lenin! 
(Prolonged applause.) 

Long live Soviet- American friendship! (Prolonged applause.) 

Long live friendship among all the peoples of the world! 
(Stormy, prolonged applause. All rise.) 

A standing ovation greeted the end of the speech made by the head of the 
Soviet Government. Nikita Sergeyevich went over to E. L. Freers, Charge 
d' Affaires ad interim of the United States in the USSR and shook his hand. A 
burst of applause once more broke out in the hall. 

The meeting was declared closed, and the majestic strains of the national 
anthem of the Soviet Union filled the hall. For a long time the audience remained 
in the hall, warmly applauding N. S. Khrushchev.